With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was simply inadequate in point of actual total value to the note. Decided July 10, 2015 — Reconsideration denied July 29, 2015 — Friedman, Dever & Merlin, H. Michael Dever, Genevieve H. Dame, for appellant. Troutman Sanders, Vincent C. Bushnell, Alan W. Bakowski, for appellee. For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Judgment affirmed. Ellington, P. J., and McFadden, J., concur. 1 Merritt v. Marlin Outdoor Advertising, Ltd., 298 Ga. App. 87, 87 (679 SE2d 97) (2009) (punctuation omitted). 2 Id. (punctuation omitted). 3 Id. 4 See id. 5 It is undisputed that Hall has not paid upon the note. 6 See OCGA § 13-5-9 (total or partial failure of consideration may be pleaded as a defense to enforcement of a promise). Cf. Merritt, 298 Ga. App. at 87 (<HOLDING>). 7 170 Ga. App. 760 (318 SE2d 205) (1984). 8

A: holding that the plaintiff had standing to pursue its takings claim while granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment that the government was liable for partial breach of contract
B: holding that the government was liable for partial breach of contract
C: holding that a partial failure of consideration can support a claim for breach of contract
D: recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract
C.