The Court of Appeals of Georgia issued a ruling on June 4, 2026, concerning a long-standing contract dispute between Ultra Group of Companies, Inc. and Daljeet Singh. The case, identified by docket number A26A0307, revolves around the obligations of Singh to provide contracts for coin-operated amusement machines (COAMs) as part of a settlement agreement. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of parties in contractual agreements and the implications of breaching such agreements.
Ultra Group of Companies, a master license holder for COAMs, entered into a settlement agreement with Singh, who operates convenience stores across Georgia. The dispute arose when Singh failed to provide the required contracts for the COAMs at specified locations, leading to claims of breach of contract. This case is particularly important for businesses involved in COAMs, as it sets a precedent regarding the enforcement of settlement agreements in the industry.
The dispute has a complex history, with both parties having appeared before the court multiple times. Initially, Singh and Ultra reached a settlement agreement in May 2016, where Singh was to provide COAM contracts for two identified locations and two unidentified locations within specified timeframes. However, Singh did not fulfill these obligations, leading Ultra to file a breach-of-contract action. The case was referred to a hearing officer appointed by the Georgia Lottery Corporation (GLC), which oversees COAM regulations.
Following the hearing, the officer ruled that while Singh breached the agreement regarding the unidentified locations, he was not in breach concerning one identified location because he had no legal relationship to that property at the time of the agreement. This conclusion was contested by Ultra, which argued that Singh should be held liable for the breach. The superior court initially dismissed both parties' petitions for review, leading to an appeal that resulted in the Court of Appeals vacating the dismissals and remanding the case for further proceedings.
In its recent ruling, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the previous decisions. The court ruled that Singh could be held liable for breach of contract regarding the 6201 Memorial Drive location, stating, "A party who unconditionally promises to convey rights in property — even property he does not own — assumes the risk of his own inability to perform." This clarification emphasizes that parties cannot escape liability simply because they do not own the property at the time of the agreement.
Furthermore, the court upheld the hearing officer's decision that Ultra was not entitled to lost revenue damages for the 1317 Columbia Drive location. The court noted that Ultra failed to prove its lost profits with reasonable certainty, stating that damages must be shown with reasonable certainty and that speculative profits are not recoverable. This aspect of the ruling reinforces the need for businesses to provide clear and specific evidence when claiming lost profits due to contract breaches.
The implications of this ruling are significant for both parties and the broader COAM industry. For Ultra, the ruling provides a pathway to potentially recover damages related to the breach of contract concerning the 6201 Memorial Drive location. For Singh, the ruling underscores the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations and the risks associated with failing to do so.
Looking ahead, the case may still have further developments as it has been remanded for a determination of the extent of damages Singh may owe to Ultra. Additionally, the possibility of an appeal remains, as the parties may seek to challenge aspects of the ruling in higher courts. This ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities of contract law and the importance of clarity in business agreements.