Legal Opinion

Lineberry v. Lineberry

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 19, 1982No. 8123DC1225PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant presents three issues on appeal. The first issue is whether the trial judge properly admitted parol evidence to change the written terms of the contract.

In general, when the language of a contract is unambiguous, the court may not ignore or delete any of its provisions. As stated in Adder v. Holman & Moody, Inc., 288 N.C. 484, 492, 219 S.E. 2d 190, 196 (1975), “The intention of the parties must be determined from the language of the contract, the purposes of the contract, the subject matter and the situation of the parties at the time the contract is executed.” An…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Neal v. MarroneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. Adder v. Holman & Moody, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. Vestal v. VestalCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Van Harris Realty, Inc. v. CoffeyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Marcoin, Inc. v. McDanielCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  2. DePasquale v. O'RAHILLYCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Stevens v. DorendaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API