http://nclawyersweekly.com Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:49:48 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/14/contract-used-car-purchase-allegedly-forged-signature-ratification-attorneys-fees-no-statutory-basis/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/14/contract-used-car-purchase-allegedly-forged-signature-ratification-attorneys-fees-no-statutory-basis/#comments Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:56:22 +0000 North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73921 Huff v. CBS Quality Cars, Inc. Since the trial court found that plaintiff signed the bill of sale and ratified the financing contract by accepting the car, driving it, and making payments on it for several months, the court was not required to make a finding of fact regarding whether plaintiff’s signature on the financing contract had been forged.]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/14/contract-used-car-purchase-allegedly-forged-signature-ratification-attorneys-fees-no-statutory-basis/feed/ 0 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/13/contract-csx-did-not-spell-out-carmack-limitation/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/13/contract-csx-did-not-spell-out-carmack-limitation/#comments Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:36:22 +0000 North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73867 ABB Inc. v. CSX Transportation Inc. Rail carrier CSX Transportation Inc. is liable for the full $550,000 in damage to a $1.3 million electrical transformer shipped from St. Louis to Pittsburgh, and the district court erred in holding that the parties had limited CSX’s potential liability in the bill of lading to $25,000; the 4th Circuit says the parties did not modify the carrier’s liability exposure, as permitted by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, and vacates the judgment limiting CSX’s liability to $25,000.]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/13/contract-csx-did-not-spell-out-carmack-limitation/feed/ 0 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/contract-co-owner-contribution-agreement-signatures-ratification-notice-specific-performance-real-property/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/contract-co-owner-contribution-agreement-signatures-ratification-notice-specific-performance-real-property/#comments Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:31:32 +0000 North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73797 Hawes v. Vandoros Even though two of the plaintiff co-owners of investment properties in Ocean Isle failed to sign the co-owner contribution agreements, they accepted the contribution agreements by performance; they have consistently made payments pursuant to their obligations under the contribution agreements. ]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/contract-co-owner-contribution-agreement-signatures-ratification-notice-specific-performance-real-property/feed/ 0 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/contract-forum-selection-clause-arbitration-labor-employment/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/contract-forum-selection-clause-arbitration-labor-employment/#comments Thu, 16 May 2013 20:15:10 +0000 North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73141 Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial. ]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/16/contract-forum-selection-clause-arbitration-labor-employment/feed/ 0 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/contract-real-property-real-estate-agent-commission-oral-agreement/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/contract-real-property-real-estate-agent-commission-oral-agreement/#comments Wed, 15 May 2013 16:47:30 +0000 North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73101 Scheerer v. Fisher The plaintiff-real estate agent and defendant Fisher entered into an oral contract pursuant to which plaintiff was to act as Fisher’s buying agent and be compensated with a commission, which was to be paid by the seller. Fisher independently negotiated the purchase of properties that plaintiff had shown him, but Fisher failed to arrange for payment of the commission when his company bought the properties; therefore, he breached the contract.]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/contract-real-property-real-estate-agent-commission-oral-agreement/feed/ 0 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/contract-banks-banking-credit-card-default-civil-practice-discovery-admissions/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/contract-banks-banking-credit-card-default-civil-practice-discovery-admissions/#comments Wed, 15 May 2013 15:34:15 +0000 ericahampton http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73091 FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Ashworth The pro se defendant contends plaintiff could not have opened a credit account for defendant because plaintiff is not authorized to issue credit cards. However, by failing to timely respond to plaintiff’s request for admissions, defendant admitted entering into a credit agreement with plaintiff, breaching the agreement, and the amount of damages owed. ]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/contract-banks-banking-credit-card-default-civil-practice-discovery-admissions/feed/ 0 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/contract-breach-claim-expired-term-reinstatement-administrative/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/contract-breach-claim-expired-term-reinstatement-administrative/#comments Wed, 15 May 2013 15:31:42 +0000 ericahampton http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73089 Embrace Us, Inc. v. Guilford Center for Behavioral Health & Disability Services Plaintiff alleges defendant breached the parties’ contract by withdrawing defendant’s endorsement of plaintiff’s services on April 12, 2010; however, the contract only said defendant would endorse plaintiff’s services through June 15, 2009. ]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/contract-breach-claim-expired-term-reinstatement-administrative/feed/ 0 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/contract-tortnegligence-unfair-trade-practice-fraud-constructive-fraud-breach-motion-to-dismiss-fiduciary-duty-enrichment/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/contract-tortnegligence-unfair-trade-practice-fraud-constructive-fraud-breach-motion-to-dismiss-fiduciary-duty-enrichment/#comments Thu, 09 May 2013 14:17:25 +0000 North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72934 Highland Paving Co. v. First Bank When exhibits attached to the plaintiff’s complaint contradict its material factual allegations such that plaintiff cannot maintain any of its claims against the defendant, it is not up to the court to draw conclusions as to whether fraud has occurred. The exhibits attached to the plaintiff’s appeal directly contradict allegation of defendant’s unfair or deceptive act. Because the terms of an attached exhibit control over contrary allegations in the complaint, we hold that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Perhaps, as plaintiff argues, there was some other “secret transaction” by which the defendant-bank benefitted, but we cannot assume that the defendant engaged in some nefarious plot when the complaint fails to identify it. ]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/contract-tortnegligence-unfair-trade-practice-fraud-constructive-fraud-breach-motion-to-dismiss-fiduciary-duty-enrichment/feed/ 0 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/contract-mediated-settlement-county-defendant-no-pre-audit-certificate-tortnegligence-negligent-misrepresentation-no-pecuniary-loss/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/contract-mediated-settlement-county-defendant-no-pre-audit-certificate-tortnegligence-negligent-misrepresentation-no-pecuniary-loss/#comments Thu, 09 May 2013 14:08:38 +0000 North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72929 Howard v. County of Durham Since there was no pre-audit certificate, any oral settlement of plaintiff’s federal claim against the county was unenforceable. ]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/contract-mediated-settlement-county-defendant-no-pre-audit-certificate-tortnegligence-negligent-misrepresentation-no-pecuniary-loss/feed/ 0 http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/contract-local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/ http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/contract-local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/#comments Fri, 03 May 2013 16:07:03 +0000 North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72787 Central Telephone Co. of Va. v. Sprint Communications Co. of Va. The 4th Circuit upholds judgment for “CenturyLink” plaintiffs, a group of 19 local exchange carriers that entered into interconnection agreements with defendant Sprint Communications under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in plaintiffs’ breach of contract action filed after Sprint began to withhold payments under the agreement; the appellate court also upholds the district court judge’s ruling that a belatedly discovered financial interest in CenturyLink held in a managed Individual Retirement Account did not require his recusal. ]]> http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/contract-local-carriers-win-telecomm-case-against-sprint/feed/ 0