In Aрril 1980, appellant-plaintiff signed a contract with European Health Spas, Inc. The terms of that contract allowed plaintiff to use the European Health Spas’ facilities for eighteen months. On August 5, 1981, appellant visited appellee-defendant Fitness Center. She entered into a “membership agreement” with appellee wherein appellant agreed to pay a total of $340.00 for the use of all of the American Fitness facilities for twelve months. Appellant alleges that, prior to signing the agreement with apрellee, certain representations were made by appellee’s employees which induced her into entering into that agreement. Specifically, appellant asserts that she was informed thаt appellee was “taking over” European Health Spas, Inc., and that, if she signed the membership agrеement with appellee, her outstanding balance of approximately $130.00 with European Health Sрas, Inc., would be cancelled and she would have full use of all the American Fitness facilities. Instead, although European Health Spas, Inc., was “taken over” by appellee, appellee, in fact, subsequently billed appellant for the balance due on her membership with European Fitness. Appellant thereafter filed suit alleging that appellee, through the misrepresentations made by its agents concerning the cancellation of her outstanding balance owing to European Health Spas, Inc., had perpetrated a fraud. Appellee counterclaimed, alleging that appellant had failed to meet her financial obligation to it and had thereby breached the “membership agreement” with apрellee entered into on August 5,1981. From the grant of appellee’s motion for summary judgment as to both appellant’s complaint and its counterclaim, appellant brings this appeal.
1. Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for imposition of sanctions against appellee pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 (Code Ann. § 81A-137) and in denying her the right to a full and complete discovery.
“This court has repeatedly held that it will not reverse a trial court’s decision on discovery matters absent a clear abuse of discretion. [Cits.]”
Retail Credit Co. v. United Family Life Ins. Co.,
2. Apрellant also asserts that summary judgment was improper as genuine issues of material fact remained concerning appellee’s fraudulent inducement of appellant’s execution of the membership *273 contract.
It is undisрuted that there was no provision in the membership agreement that appellee was to assume responsibility for paying the balance due to European Health Spas, Inc., by appellant, or that the balance due would be cancelled. Furthermore, the membership agreement did contain the follоwing clause: “I understand that the front and back hereof comprise the entire agreement pertaining tо membership and no other agreement of any kind, verbal understanding or promise whatsoever will be recognized or be binding upon American Fitness Center.”
Appellant had two courses of action available to her upon discovery of the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation. She “could affirm the contract and sue in contract for breach or [s]he could seek to rescind the contract and sue in tort for alleged fraud and deceit.”
City Dodge v. Gardner,
“ ‘Where one who is induced to contract by the fraudulent misrepresentations of the other party elects to affirm the contract and seek damages, he is bound by thе provisions of the contract and may not recover if any of the contractual provisions prеclude him from establishing any of the five essential elements of an action in tort for fraud and deceit.’ [Cit.] ”
Hannah v. Shauck,
The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the main action and as to the counterclaim.
Judgment affirmed.