RJM Plumbing, Inc. v. Superior Construction Corp. When the parties’ contract does not set a time for payment, the issue of what is a reasonable time for payment is a mixed question of law and fact. Without extenuating circumstances or even an explanation by the defendant-general contractor, it would be unreasonable as a matter of law to expect the plaintiff-subcontractor to wait three years to be paid for its work. The subcontractor’s motion for partial summary judgment against the general contractor is granted.Read More »
Lomax Construction, Inc. v. Triad Sheet Metal & Mechanical, Inc. Even if the plaintiff-general contractor made a qualified acceptance the defendant-subcontractor’s bid, the parties did not enter into a written contract, and the communications and conduct between the parties was insufficient to show that they formed an implied contract. Therefore, the contractor cannot make out a breach of contract claim based on the subcontractor’s refusal to stand by its bid once it realized the project owner had added a new component just before bids were due. We affirm summary judgment for the subcontractor.Read More »
Williams v. Houses of Distinction, Inc. A judge should not have dismissed, on statute of limitations grounds, breach of contract and warranty claims brought by the plaintiff purchasers of a home constructed by the defendant, where a genuine issue exists regarding when the plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known about the damage.Read More »
Gaines & Company, Inc. v. Wendell Falls Residential, LLC A plaintiff that provided labor and materials for a wastewater pump station and a gravity sewer outfall at a residential subdivision now owned by Wake County cannot enforce its materialmen lien rights against the County. Gaines and Company, Inc., (Gaines) waived its materialmen’s lien rights prior to a conveyance of real property to Wake County, nor did it allege a contractual relationship between it and Wake County for work performed after the conveyance. Moreover, materialmen’s liens on public bodies and buildings are prohibited by statute. Therefore, Gaines may not enforce a lien on Wake County property. We affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Wake County.
Tagged with: ContractRead More »
Rioux v. Accurate Home Inspection, Inc. An order limiting plaintiff’s claim to the damages amount set out in the parties’ contract — $330 – is not the same as a final order. Despite the trial court’s certification for immediate appeal, the trial court has yet to decide the issues of whether defendants breached the contract or were negligent. Therefore, the trial court’s order granting partial judgment on the pleadings is interlocutory and is not immediately appealable.Read More »
Singletary v. P & A Investments, Inc. Even though a mobile home's title had not yet been transferred to the defendant-mobile homes dealer when the dealer sold the mobile home to plaintiff, since plaintiff bought the mobile home as is/where is, the risk of loss of the mobile home passed to plaintiff the moment the parties executed their sale contract. The Uniform Commercial Code, not the Motor Vehicles Act, controls the risk of loss here. We reverse the trial court's judgment for plaintiff.
Tagged with: ContractRead More »
Lake Colony Construction, Inc. v. Boyd A construction company's business arrangement with a developer constituted a joint venture. Plaintiff Lake Colony Construction, Inc. appeals from a judgment determining that it entered into a joint venture with defendant Lake Colony Partners, LLC and, therefore, was solely a judgment creditor whose rights to the proceeds from certain real property were subordinate to three deeds of trust. Because the parties' contract expressly stated the parties' intent to form a "joint venture" and further provided for the sharing of profits and that each had the right to direct the other's conduct in some measure, we hold that the trial court properly construed the contract as establishing a joint venture. Therefore, we affirm.Read More »
RDLG, LLC v. RPM Group, LLC Even if defendant, a Tennessee real estate marketing firm, engaged licensed N.C. brokers to sell land in Linville Falls, G.S. § 93A-1 still required defendant to hold an N.C. broker's license. Since defendant did not hold an N.C. real estate broker's license, it cannot enforce its agreement with plaintiff to market land in North Carolina.Read More »
Contract – Findings of Fact – Conclusions of Law – Necessary Party – Competent Evidence – Breach of Contract – Legal Services – Attorney’s Fees
Trachtman Law Firm, PLLC v. Csapo. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-16-0431, 15 pp.) (Rick Elmore, J.) Appealed from Wake County District Court. (Lori Christian, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: The trial court ...Read More »