On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, Phillips & Sons and the three personal guarantors do not claim that the $15,000 downpayment was paid to Pioneer. In fact, the appellants admit that the downpayment was not paid to Pioneer at the time of the sale and that after the sale, they attempted to raise money to pay the $15,000 portion of the sale price represented by the downpayment, but they were unable to do so. 1
The appellants' sole defense is that because the sale contract provided for a $15,000 downpayment, we should construe the unambiguous terms of the contract as establishing that the downpayment was made at the time of the sale and refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. Just because the contract provided for a $15,000 downpayment to be made at the time of the sale does not demand that we find it was made. Because the evidence is undisputed that the $15,000 downpayment was part of the sale price and that the appellants owed it and did not pay it, Pioneer carried its burden as movant for summary judgment of demonstrating that there was no genuine issue of fact requiring jury resolution. OCGA 9-11-56
; Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991)
. The trial court correctly granted Pioneer's motion for summary judgment and correctly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment.
There being no adequate legal basis upon which the appellants could have anticipated that the judgment of the trial court would be reversed, we conclude that the appeal was for the purpose of delay only. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Pioneer Machinery, Inc. for damages in the amount of ten percent of the judgment awarded, to be entered in the remittitur pursuant to OCGA 5-6-6
Patrick D. Gill, for appellants.