Legal Opinion
Young v. Sweet
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided March 2, 1966No. 35PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RodmaN, E.J.
An offer to enter into a contract in the future must, to be binding, specify all of the essential and material terms and leave nothing to be agreed upon as a result of future negotiations. Thompson-McLean, Inc. v. Campbell, 261 N.C. 310, 314, 134 S.E. 2d 671; Wade v. Lutterloh, 196 N.C. 116, 120, 144 S.E. 694; Croom v. Lumber Co., 182 N.C. 217, 220, 108 S.E. 735; Edmondson v. Fort, 75 N.C. 404.
The rule applicable to contracts in general is applicable to contracts containing a provision for an extension or renewal of a lease. Devin, J., in Realty Co. v. Logan, 216 N.C. 26, 3 S.E.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Croom v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Croom v. Goldsboro Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- McAdoo v. Callum Bros.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Wade v. . LutterlohSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Thompson-McLean, Inc. v. CampbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Boyce v. McMahanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
- Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated.North Carolina Business Court · 2003
- Edgewater Enterprises, Inc. v. HollerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
- Wm. Muirhead Construction Co. v. Housing AuthorityCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
- Mecklenburg County v. Simply Fashion Stores, Ltd.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.