Legal Opinion

Landrum v. Armbruster

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 7, 1976No. 7530DC605PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

The right of the parties will be determined by application of pertinent provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. Plaintiff’s answers to defendants’ interrogatories establish that plaintiff delivered his racing vehicle in Illinois under a transaction of purchase, the consequences of which are governed by G.S. 25-2-403. Insofar as here pertinent, G.S. 25-2-403 provides as follows:

“Power to transfer; good faith purchase of goods; ‘entrust ing.’— (1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer. ... A person with voidable title has…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cutts v. CaseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Lane v. HoneycuttCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
  3. Shearin v. National Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Messer v. Laurel Hill AssociatesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Ledbetter v. Darwin Dobbs Co., Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1985
  3. Cooper v. Pacific Automobile InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Reliance Insurance v. Market Motors, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API