Legal Opinion
Chemical Realty Corp. v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Hollywood
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided January 20, 1987No. 8628SC532PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WELLS, Judge.
Plaintiff contends that the court erred in concluding that the undated letter issued by defendant to plaintiff in early April 1973 (hereinafter approval letter) “was not a promise by Home Federal to Chemical, supported by consideration, to purchase its construction loan. . . .” We disagree.
In general,
[a]n enforceable contract is one supported by consideration. Investment Properties v. Norburn, 281 N.C. 191, 188 S.E. 2d 342 (1972) .... It is well established that consideration sufficient to support a contract or a modification of its terms consists of “any benefit, right, or…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. NorburnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Howell v. FisherCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Brown-Marx Associates, Ltd. And Gary E. Smith v. Emigrant Savings Bank and Prudential Savings BankCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Lee v. Paragon Group Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. RubishSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Shear v. Stevens Building Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
- Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry, Bekaert & HollandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Holshouser v. Shaner Hotel Group Properties One Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- DeMent v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- Blis Day Spa, LLC v. Hartford Insurance GroupDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2006
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.