Vaseleniuck Engine Development, LLC v. Sabertooth Motorcycles, LLC After plaintiff notified defendant that plaintiff was asserting a possessory lien on 35 of the 50 motorcycle engines that defendant had ordered and partially paid for, defendant requested a judicial hearing. Nonetheless, plaintiff sold three of the engines at auction. Although the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to raise an inference that plaintiff failed to substantially comply with G.S. § 44A-4, this is a factual issue which can be determined only by a jury.
TD Bank, N.A. v. Mirabella Where defendant’s promissory note promises to pay Carolina First Bank or Carolina First Bank’s order, and where the only evidence that plaintiff is entitled to collect on the note is in several merger documents which were only provided in the appendix of plaintiff’s appellate brief, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff is entitled to collect on defendant’s note.
Hanes v. Darar Where (1) defendant Darar was the owner and president of both corporate defendants; (2) both businesses shared officers, agents, business locations and phone numbers; and (3) the two corporations had a “complimentary” nature (a used car dealership and the company that financed customers’ purchases of the dealership’s cars), the trial court could apply the inter-corporate liability doctrine from W.G. Fountain v. West Lumber Company, 161 NC 35, 76 S.E.2d 533 (1912).
Shirvinski v. U.S. Coast Guard Plaintiff sub-subcontractor on defendant Coast Guard’s Deepwater Acquisition Project cannot sue the Coast Guard for defamation and related tort claims for alleged injuries from termination of its at-will consulting agreement and removal of its name from a list of government contractors; the 4th Circuit says permitting these claims to go forward would reward artful pleading and impermissibly constitutionalize state tort law, and it affirms summary judgment for defendants.
Hill v. StubHub, Inc. Even though, via defendant’s website, plaintiff paid $149 each for concert tickets with a face value of $56, defendant merely brings buyers and sellers together – for a fee – and so is entitled to immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230.
Williams v. Habul The parties’ settlement agreement required plaintiff to dismiss his lawsuit once defendants made the settlement payment. The agreement also required defendants to employ and pay a third party; however, that clause was independent of the payment/dismissal requirements.
Olympus Managed Health Care, Inc. v. American Housecall Physicians, Inc. The parties’ early agreements – such as their letter of intent – all contemplated a formal merger agreement. The parties’ attorneys collected signatures and held them in escrow pending the scheduled closing. When plaintiffs postponed the merger the day before the scheduled closing, the merger agreement had not become binding; therefore, plaintiffs did not breach the merger agreement.
ECS Carolinas, LLP v. Perry Even though the parties’ contract called for plaintiff to give the defendant-landowner a preliminary oral report before producing its written environmental assessment, the oral report was not intended to give the landowner an opportunity to cancel the environmental assessment.
Northwestern National Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. FMC Corp. Even though plaintiff’s workers’ compensation policy, which covered Lithium Corp.’s employees, was accompanied by reinsurance and a hold-harmless contract with Lithium’s owner, the owner and reinsurer both went out of business. An asset purchase agreement, pursuant to which defendant bought Lithium, does not subject defendant to liability for asbestosis claims filed against plaintiff’s workers’ compensation policy.
Thompson Installations, Inc. v. Stock Building Supply, LLC Plaintiff alleges that, despite the non-exclusive nature of the parties’ contract, defendant tried to prevent plaintiff from accepting jobs from defendant’s competitors. This is not a sufficient aggravating circumstance to raise plaintiff’s breach of contract claim to the level of an unfair trade practices claim.
