Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ron Medlin Construction v. Harris

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 1, 2009No. COA06-1665-2Published

1DissentJackson, Judge

Because I perceive that the principle that there can be no implied contract where an express contract exists on the same subject matter is meant to apply between the same parties, I must respectfully dissent.

The majority primarily relies upon two cases to conclude that Ron Medlin Construction cannot recover in quantum meruit against defendants because there was an express contract between defendants and George Ronald Medlin: [Vetco] Concrete Co. v. [Troy] Lumber Co., 256 N.C. 709, 124 S.E.2d 905 (1962) (“Vetco”) and Jenco v. Signature Homes, Inc., 122 N.C. App. 95, 468 S.E.2d 533 (1996).

The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bryan Builders Supply v. MidyetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Vetco Concrete Company v. TROY LUMBER COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  3. Brady v. FulghumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  4. Jenco v. Signature Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  5. Ron Medlin Construction v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API