Copy Products, Inc. v. Randolph
| Decision Date | 07 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 8221DC502,8221DC502 |
| Citation | 62 N.C.App. 553,303 S.E.2d 87 |
| Parties | COPY PRODUCTS, INC. v. Clyde C. RANDOLPH, Jr., Individually; Doris Green Randolph, Individually; and Randolph and Randolph, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law, a Partnership. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Paul A. Sinal, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellant.
David F. Tamer, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellee.
The plaintiff lost this case on a G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) motion for a directed verdict. On a directed verdict motion,
the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, deeming all evidence which tends to support his position to be true, resolving all evidentiary conflicts favorably to him and giving the non-movant the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in his favor.
Daughtry v. Turnage, 295 N.C. 543, 544, 246 S.E.2d 788, 789 (1978). W. Shuford, N.C.Civil Practice and Procedure § 50-5 (2d ed. 1981).
When considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, including resolving evidentiary conflicts in its favor, we conclude that the entry of a directed verdict for the defendants was improper.
First, the lease agreement between the parties could be seen as a valid contract. The essential contract elements of offer, acceptance, consideration, and no defenses to formation can be established by the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. As a result, we need not address the defendants' arguments that the lease was not executed in accord with corporate formalities, or that it was only an acceptance of an offer that the plaintiff made in a letter two months earlier. In addition, the defendants' contention that the earlier letter is part of the contract between the parties may fail under the parol evidence rule. See 2 Brandis, N.C.Evidence §§ 251-260 (2d rev. ed. 1982).
Second, assuming that the lease is a valid contract, as we must on this directed verdict motion, four terms of the lease point to a recovery by the plaintiff.
First, the defendants could not terminate the lease without the plaintiff's permission. They never had that permission and may be liable for liquidated damages as a result.
Second, not paying rent is default under the lease. Third, one remedy for default is accelerating the time for all unpaid rent. Finally, the lease provides that when the plaintiff terminates the lease, it can recover all due and unpaid rent and liquidated damages.
Our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bon Aqua Int'l, Inc. v. Second Earth, Inc.
...Cap Care Grp., Inc. v. McDonald, 149 N.C. App. 817, 822, 561 S.E.2d 578, 582 (2002) (citing Copy Prods., Inc. v. Randolph, 62 N.C. App. 553, 555, 303 S.E.2d 87, 88 (1983)). Furthermore, "[i]n every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will ......
-
Adams v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc.
...Koltis v. North Carolina Dep't of Human Res., 125 N.C.App. 268, 271, 480 S.E.2d 702, 704 (1997) (citing Copy Prods., Inc. v. Randolph, 62 N.C.App. 553, 555, 303 S.E.2d 87, 88 (1983) ). “North Carolina has a strong public policy favoring the settlement of disputes by arbitration. [Said] stro......
-
Braswell Egg Co. v. Poultry Mgmt. Sys., Inc.
...9, 773 S.E.2d 566, 572 (2015) ; see Yeager v. Dobbins, 252 N.C. 824, 828, 114 S.E.2d 820, 823–24 (1960) ; Copy Prods., Inc. v. Randolph, 62 N.C. App. 553, 555, 303 S.E.2d 87, 88 (1983). The price quote is a valid contract. It contained PMSI's offer to sell the Command III and Watchdog Timer......
-
Wilkerson ex rel. Estate of Wilkerson v. Nelson
...consideration, mutual assent, and the presence of no valid defenses for contract formation. See Copy Products, Inc. v. Randolph, 62 N.C.App. 553, 555, 303 S.E.2d 87, 88 (1983); Snyder v. Freeman, 300 N.C. 204, 218, 266 S.E.2d 593, 602 (1980) ("The essence of any contract is the mutual assen......