Passmore v. Woodard
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Kidd v. EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Triplett v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Helms v. ReaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Norburn v. MacKieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Countryside Orthopaedics, P.C. v. PeytonSupreme Court of Virginia · 2001
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lake Mary Ltd. Partnership v. JohnstonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- Jay Group, Ltd. v. GlasgowCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Lee v. KeckCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Camp v. LeonardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- Broughton v. BroughtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.