Legal Opinion

Passmore v. Woodard

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 15, 1978No. 7713DC782PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRITT, Judge.

PLAINTIFF’S CROSS APPEAL

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in. concluding as a matter of law that she was not entitled to specific performance of the option agreement. We find no merit in this contention.

An option is not itself a contract to sell but is transformed into such a contract upon acceptance by the optionee in accordance with its terms. The contract then becomes specifically enforceable if it is otherwise a proper subject for such equitable relief. Kidd v. Early, 289 N.C. 343, 222 S.E. 2d 392 (1976); Byrd v. Freeman, 252 N.C. 724, 114 S.E. 2d 715 (1960). However,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Kidd v. EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Triplett v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  3. Helms v. ReaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Norburn v. MacKieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  5. Countryside Orthopaedics, P.C. v. PeytonSupreme Court of Virginia · 2001

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Lake Mary Ltd. Partnership v. JohnstonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  2. Jay Group, Ltd. v. GlasgowCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  3. Lee v. KeckCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  4. Camp v. LeonardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  5. Broughton v. BroughtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API