A Georgia resident responded to a Nebraska trade-paper advertisement placed by Wisconsin sellers for a customized truck and trailer. By long-distance telephone, the parties reached an agreement, and Flint sent a $6,000 deposit from Georgia. After receiving the deposit, the sellers said they could not deliver the ordered truck and trailer, tried to substitute another, and then refused to return the deposit when Flint declined. Unrebutted affidavits showed the sellers did not regularly do business, solicit business, engage in persistent conduct, derive substantial revenue, have employees, or maintain authorization to do business in Georgia; their only Georgia connection was this transaction and telephone communications.
Issue
Whether Georgia courts could exercise personal jurisdiction under OCGA § 9-10-91 over Wisconsin defendants whose only connection to Georgia was the single transaction at issue and telephone communications with a Georgia resident. More specifically, the court considered whether prior cases required a literal construction of the long-arm statute.
Rule
Under OCGA § 9-10-91, an out-of-state defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Georgia only if the defendant has done one of the acts specified in the statute within Georgia. If the defendant has done none of those statutory acts, Georgia courts lack personal jurisdiction.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Nina Barrett, who lives in Savannah, saw an ad in a regional construction journal printed in Missouri for a custom excavator offered by Red Mesa Equipment, a Colorado company. After several phone calls, Nina mailed a deposit from Georgia, but Red Mesa later refused to deliver the machine and would not refund the deposit. Red Mesa was personally served in Colorado and submitted unchallenged affidavits stating it had no employees, offices, authorization to do business, or regular business activity in Georgia, and that its only Georgia contact was this deal and the calls about it.
May a Georgia court exercise personal jurisdiction over Red Mesa under the rule applied by the majority?
Explanation. The majority applied a literal construction of OCGA § 9-10-91 and held that a Georgia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only if the defendant has done one of the statutory acts within Georgia. Here, as in the controlling rule, the unchallenged affidavits show only a single transaction and telephone communications, with no statutory act shown in Georgia. That defeats jurisdiction.