Horton v. Humble Oil & Refining Company
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtWiNBORNE, C.J.
The pivotal question presented on this appeal is this: Is there sufficient evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, to establish the existence of a contract between plaintiff and the defendant Oil Company? The answer is No.
In Williamson v. Miller, 231 N.C. 722, 58 S.E. 2d 743, this Court said: “ ‘To be binding, the terms of a contract must be definite and certain or capable of being made so.’ Elks v. Ins. Co., 159 N.C. 619, 75 S.E. 808; Sides v. Tidwell, 216 N.C. 480, 5 S.E. 2d 316.”
In Elks v. Ins. Co., supra, this Court said: “It is elementary that it is necessary that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mississippi & Dominion Steamship Co. v. SwiftSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1894
- Cash Register Co. v. . TownsendSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Elks v. . Insurance CoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Williamson v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Pritchard v. . DaileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- O'Grady v. First Union National BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- Schlieper v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- Normile v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- McFadyen v. Duke UniversityDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2011
- Elliott v. Duke University, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.