*1 190 who had persons of against the execution general prohibition
create a
time of the commission
birthday at the
their seventeenth
not reached
State,
(4) (302
Legare v.
SE2d
Such construction of the statute
interpreta
the construction and
legal principles governing
tablished
stat
always
the law that criminal
penal statutes. “It has
been
tion of
State,
McAllister v.
strictly
against the state.
utes must be
construed
‘
.
(50
921) (1905).
legislative
.
.
It is also true that
Edward D. Harry Donald Brown, Gordon, Assistant Attorney, N. District Gerald W. Bowers, General, Attorney Attorney, District Michael J.
45219. LAW v. CHEEK-LAW.
Clarke, Presiding Justice. the rule puts application This case in issue the of the Varn, (1978), pronounced in to a Ga. 309 provision dealing divorce its with a waiver of the waived the to seek modification. The trial court held the husband right modify. disagree. We fol- of the under consideration reads as
lows: they may have to any right
Both the terms of this under the laws (wife) waives Specifically plaintiff state or other state. 30-220, seq., to Code Ann. et Ga. agreement relating the future. appeal, the husband maintains the first sentence modification paragraph fails to bar ambiguity, modification because of and that the paragraph alimony. does not mention He fur- ther contends that the second accurately sentence in- states the true party tent of the which was to the wife’s alimony payments.
In Varn v. supra, we held that clear words *2 to referring right the effectively deprive modification par- can the right ties of their to seek modification. The holding is ambiguous that an contradictory provision fails to constitute a waiver of rights. provision in in begins this case with the parties statement that both any right modify agreement. to the by It ends stating right the wife waives her to ali- worst, mony. At these two sentences a amount to At contradiction. best, they hand, create an ambiguity. On one parties both seem to modify. waive all rights hand, to On the other the wife seems to have waived the to modify alimony. mixture, From such a we are clearly unable to parties. discern the intent of the Under such circumstances, we the find contract fails to test meet the established in Varn.
Judgment concur, reversed. except Marshall, All the Justices J., Weltner, JJ., C. Smith and who dissent.
Weltner, Justice, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. 309, 667) (1978)
1. Varn held: right to by par- modification will agreement be waived the “[T]he very ties in clear language which refers to the right of modification.” case,
2. In parties this agreed: “Both any right they may have to terms under laws this state or other state.” my requirement opinion, that precisely fits of “very clear waiver language, which refers to the of modifica- tion.” argument
3. The contrary may to the be in found the sentence immediately above, quoted “Specifically, that which is: (wife) plaintiff waives the Ann. Ga. Code 30-220 et seq., relating this the future.” interpreted nothing This sentence could be more than an iden- waived, one rights tification of of the several that both have hence precedes it would not vitiate the broad it. mutual waiver that
I am authorized state that Chief Justice Marshall and Justice join Smith in this dissent. April April 27,
Reconsideration denied Custer, Hill, Clark, Douglas B. A. Custer, & Lawrence Hill Levy, Daniel C. B. SERVICE, et al. v. SACHA.
45259. COFFEE BUTLER INC. Justice. Gregory, Sacha, appellee, Early was the sole stockholder of Bird
James providing Coffee Inc. coffee services to office ac- a business H. metropolitan counts in the Atlanta area. Thomas E. Williams and primary Steve Swink are the shareholders and officers of Coffee But- Service, Inc., ler office coffee service. Williams and nationwide Associates, I, partner- are principals Swink also the ship. Early merged
November Bird Coffee Inc. with *3 Service, Coffee Butler merger, Inc. To effectuate 1) 2) agreements Agreement Merger, were entered into: and Plan of Purchase, Employment Agreement, Option Put and Call Stock Agreement, Agreement, Consultant Retention Business Transfer Agreement, Guaranty Payment. Service,
Sacha began employment with Coffee Butler Inc. No- vember August purport- 1984. On 1985 Sacha was terminated edly because he retained six customer accounts and serviced those ac- himself, expense reports, counts falsified and told Coffee Butler employees Service entering hospital he was he for tests when fact took a vacation. termination,
After his Agree- Sacha activated the Stock Purchase Associates, I, ment purchase under which Office Coffee agreed to Service, $100,000. Sacha’s stock in Appellants Coffee Butler Inc. for honored the Stock Purchase Agreement.
Sacha then activated the Consultant Agreement, Retention whereby Associates, I, Office Coffee to cause Coffee agreed Butler Sacha, Inc. to engage the services of as a consultant period years for a of ten commencing upon termination of the em- ployment agreement upon exercise of Agree- the Stock Purchase compensation ment. His sliding for consultation was set on a scale $400,000 $943,179 from depending upon the date of commence- Sacha, ment. In the event Coffee engage Butler Inc. failed to Associates, I, engage would him under the same terms.