Baker v. Log Systems, Inc., 8419SC929
| Decision Date | 18 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 8419SC929,8419SC929 |
| Citation | 330 S.E.2d 632,75 N.C.App. 347 |
| Parties | Frank W. BAKER v. LOG SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a Lincoln Log Homes, Inc. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Hartsell, Hartsell & Mills by Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., Concord, for plaintiff-appellee.
Hamel, Hamel & Pearce by Hugo A. Pearce, III and Reginald S. Hamel, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant first contends the court erred in granting summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of liability. It argues summary judgment was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the issue of fraud since plaintiff's complaint sounded in fraud. The court, however, granted summary judgment for plaintiff on the ground that the undisputed facts showed defendant breached its contract with plaintiff. If the facts alleged in a complaint are sufficient to permit recovery under a legal theory not stated in the complaint, recovery will be allowed under that theory. See Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 254 S.E.2d 611 (1979). Here, the complaint alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract. The undisputed facts show that the parties entered into an agreement in which defendant agreed to appoint plaintiff as one of its dealers in exchange for the purchase of a log it by plaintiff and that defendant, not having the authority to issue franchises in the State of California, breached that contract by being unable to award the franchise upon the payment of the deposit by plaintiff. Defendant's arguments regarding the propriety of summary judgment on the issue of fraud are extraneous and irrelevant.
Defendant next contends that the court erred in finding that the decision of the Commission of Corporations of California: (a) affected the validity of the agreement between plaintiff and defendant; (b) determined that the defendant's action in entering into the agreement was unlawful conduct; and (c) determined that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant constituted franchising activities as defined under the California Code. This contention is without merit. The California Commission found in its decision that defendant had sold franchises in California, that these franchises included the contractual agreement between the parties, and that plaintiff did not have authority to issue franchises under California law. These findings clearly support the court's finding and conclusion.
Defendant's remaining contention that there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McConnell v. McConnell, COA01-1009.
...Anderson Chevrolet/Olds v. Higgins, 57 N.C.App. 650, 292 S.E.2d 159 (1982) (citations omitted); see also Baker v. Log Systems, Inc., 75 N.C.App. 347, 350-51, 330 S.E.2d 632, 635 (1985) (where appellant does not bring forth exceptions in his brief to certain findings of the trial court, he i......
-
IN THE MATTER OF NMB
...843-44 (1978). Any potential issues not brought forth and argued in a party's brief are deemed abandoned. Baker v. Log Systems, Inc., 75 N.C. App. 347, 350, 330 S.E.2d 632, 635 (1985). This Court has recognized this procedural error in termination of parental rights cases. See In re Leftwic......
-
In re Pope
...convincing evidence in the record. Thus, this Court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact. See Baker v. Log Systems, Inc., 75 N.C.App. 347, 350-51, 330 S.E.2d 632, 635 (1985) (where appellant does not bring forth in her brief exceptions to findings of fact, she is deemed to have ab......
-
Issuance of CAMA Minor Development Permit No. 82-0010 to Ford S. Worthy v. Town of Bath
...were excepted to but not brought forward in petitioner's brief, therefore the exceptions are deemed abandoned. Baker v. Log Systems, Inc., 75 N.C.App. 347, 330 S.E.2d 632 (1985). Those findings along with findings of fact Nos. 14 and 19 which were not excepted to, are presumed to be support......