X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This is the third appearance of this case before this Court. In Williamson v. Strickland & Smith, Inc. , 263 Ga. App. 431 587 SE2d 876 2003, this Court, as pertinent here, ruled that Strickland & Smith S & S had failed to prove the expenses it would have incurred on its claim for lost profits had it been able to fulfill a buyer’s order with onions from Williamson. S & S contended it could not fill this order due to Williamson’s breach of his contract with S & S. Upon remand, instead of conducting a new trial on S & S’s lost profits claim, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Billy Williamson, Williamson Produce, Inc., and Classic Vidalia, Inc. on this claim. In Strickland & Smith, Inc. v. Williamson , 281 Ga. App. 784 637 SE2d 170 2006, this Court reversed the judgment, concluding that, because “Williamson did not appeal the denial of a directed verdict or j.n.o.v., but rather the denial of a motion for new trial, the only remedy available to him is a new trial, at which S & S will have an opportunity to present additional or different evidence.”1 Footnote omitted. In the present appeal, Williamson appeals from the judgment entered by the trial court following a bench trial awarding S & S $76,040 plus interest at seven percent per annum from June 12, 1998. A trial court’s factual findings in a non-jury trial may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. OCGA § 9-11-52 a ; Sadler v. First Nat. Bank , 267 Ga. 122, 123 2 475 SE2d 643 1996. “Furthermore, since the clearly erroneous test is the same as the any evidence rule, we will not disturb factfindings of the trial court if there is any evidence to sustain them.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Lee v. Collins , 249 Ga. App. 674, 676 3 547 SE2d 583 2001. Viewed with all inferences in favor of the findings of the trial court sitting as fact finder, the evidence here was that, in early June 1998, S & S operated a controlled atmosphere storage facility in which it stored onions for Williamson as well as onions from other growers. According to Robert Smith, an owner of S & S, Williamson’s onions which Williamson had purchased from grower Lillard, “the Lillard onions” were stored first because Williamson said he would not need any onions until after July 1st. After S & S had stored the Lillard onions for a week or ten days, however, Williamson called on a Sunday afternoon and told Smith that he needed four loads of his jumbo onions shipped by 8:00 a.m. the next morning. Because Williamson’s onions were stored behind other onions, including onions purchased by S & S from McLain “the McLain onions”, it would have been impossible to get to the Lilliard onions and load them by the next morning. According to Smith, Williamson said that if Smith would let him have the McLain onions, he would give Lillard onions of equal quality to Smith in exchange or he would pay the amount for which Smith had contracted to sell the McLain onions. Smith told Williamson that S & S had contracted to sell 4,022 bags of the McLain onions to Tom Laster in North Carolina for $20 per 40 pound box.

Laster testified that he had contracted with S & S to purchase about 4,000 boxes of onions at $20 per box. Laster had also agreed to be responsible for having the onions delivered to North Carolina and he was going to pack the onions with his employees in North Carolina. If Smith had had to arrange transportation of the onions to North Carolina, his expenses would have been $600 a load for four loads, a total of $2,400.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
June 20, 2024
Atlanta, GA

The Daily Report is honoring those attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession.


Learn More
June 27, 2024
New York

Consulting Magazine identifies consultants that have the biggest impact on their clients, firms and the profession.


Learn More
July 11, 2024
New York, NY

The National Law Journal Elite Trial Lawyers recognizes U.S.-based law firms performing exemplary work on behalf of plaintiffs.


Learn More

Small group of federal litigators that handle primarily fashion and music related cases. In need of additional associate to work on fashion...


Apply Now ›

Columbia Law School Human Rights ClinicColumbia Law School seeks an experienced human rights advocate with a strong interest in clinical tea...


Apply Now ›

Our client, one of the premier family law boutiques in Chicago, is seeking to add a family law attorney to support their growing practice. ...


Apply Now ›
06/14/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
04/29/2024
The National Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›