Lafarge Building Materials, Inc. v. Thompson, 295 Ga. 637

In Oct. 2007 Larry B. Thompson signed a continuing guaranty incorporated into an Elite Dwellings, LLC credit application submitted to Lafarge Building Materials.
Elite Dwellings charged building materials in 2008 and failed to pay; Lafarge sued Elite Dwellings and Thompson in May 2009 seeking joint and several liability.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Lafarge, finding the guaranty satisfied the Statute of Frauds and entered judgment for $105,147; Elite Dwellings did not appeal.
A divided Court of Appeals reversed, holding the guaranty failed the Statute of Frauds because it did not sufficiently identify the principal debtor by name.
Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the guaranty (which incorporated the credit application and used the term “Applicant”) sufficiently identified the principal debtor.
Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the guaranty (read with the incorporated application and the ordinary meaning of “Applicant”) adequately identified Elite Dwellings as the principal debtor; court advised lenders to name the principal debtor explicitly to avoid disputes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether guaranty satisfied Statute of Frauds by identifying principal debtor	Guaranty incorporated application and used term “Applicant”; ordinary meaning of Applicant points to Elite Dwellings, so principal debtor is identified	Term “Applicant” is ambiguous; guaranty does not expressly name the principal, so fails Statute of Frauds	Reversed Court of Appeals: guaranty, with incorporated application and ordinary meaning of “Applicant,” sufficiently identifies Elite Dwellings as principal debtor

John Deere Co. v. Haralson, 278 Ga. 192 (2004) (statute of frauds requires written, signed guaranty identifying debt, principal debtor, promisor, and promisee)
Lafarge Building Materials, Inc. v. Pratt, 307 Ga. App. 767 (2011) (guaranty that did not incorporate application failed to identify applicant)
McDonald v. Ferguson, 274 Ga. App. 526 (2005) (labeling debtor as “applicant” or “entity” insufficient where neither document identifies that party)
Capital Color Printing, Inc. v. Ahern, 291 Ga. App. 101 (2008) (incorporated application can clarify terms like “customer” or “purchaser” and satisfy Statute of Frauds)
Archer W. Contractors, Ltd. v. Estate of Pitts, 292 Ga. 219 (2012) (contractual terms are generally given their ordinary and common meaning)