Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Flint v. Gust

Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1986 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionLong-Arm Jurisdictionpersonal jurisdictionlong-arm statuteOCGA § 9-10-91(1)OCGA § 9-10-91(2)OCGA § 9-10-91(3)

Facts

The plaintiff, a Georgia resident, alleged that he responded to an advertisement in a trade magazine distributed in Georgia and ordered a customized Ford truck and trailer from the Wisconsin defendants. At the defendants' request, he sent them a cashier's check for $6,000 as a deposit. He alleged that after receiving the deposit, the defendants tried to substitute a different vehicle and then refused repeated demands to return the deposit. The defendants submitted affidavits stating they did not regularly conduct or solicit business in Georgia, had not engaged in a persistent course of conduct there, did not derive substantial revenue from goods used or services rendered there, and had done no Georgia business other than this transaction.

Issue

Whether Georgia courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants on the plaintiff's breach of contract claim under OCGA § 9-10-91(1), and on the fraud and conversion claims under Georgia's long-arm statute consistent with due process. More specifically, the court had to decide whether the defendants' conduct created sufficient contacts with Georgia.

Rule

For a breach of contract action not involving Georgia real property, jurisdiction under OCGA § 9-10-91(1) exists only if the nonresident defendant has purposefully done some act or consummated some transaction in Georgia, the cause of action arises from or is connected with that act or transaction, and exercising jurisdiction does not offend traditional fairness and substantial justice. Mere advertising in national trade magazines circulating in Georgia and accepting orders transmitted from Georgia by mail, telephone, or other interstate means is not purposeful business activity in Georgia. For tort claims under OCGA § 9-10-91(2), the exercise of jurisdiction requires some activity by the nonresident defendant in or with Georgia and constitutionally sufficient minimum contacts, but does not require that the activity amount to a transaction of business as described in OCGA § 9-10-91(3).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Harbor Fabrication, a Minnesota company, places ads for custom food trucks in a national trade journal that circulates in Georgia. After seeing the ad in Savannah, Lena Ortiz calls Minnesota, mails in specifications and a deposit, and Blue Harbor later refuses to deliver the truck she ordered.

If Lena sues Blue Harbor in Georgia only for breach of contract, what is the best result on Blue Harbor's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction?

Explanation. For a contract claim under OCGA § 9-10-91(1), Georgia requires that the nonresident purposefully do some act or consummate some transaction in Georgia, that the claim arise from that act, and that jurisdiction comport with fairness. The majority held that mere advertising in national publications circulating in Georgia, coupled with accepting orders and deposits sent from Georgia through interstate channels, is not purposeful business activity in Georgia. So the breach of contract claim should be dismissed. (Derived from Flint v. Gust (n.d.).)