Legal Opinion

Wohlfahrt v. Schneider

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 15, 1986No. 855SC1326PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Judge.

Defendant’s principal contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding and concluding that his conduct constituted an anticipatory breach of the promissory note, justifying an award for the full amount due thereon, without considering and applying provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code which govern the right of a buyer of goods to revoke his acceptance of those goods. We agree with defendant that the evidence at trial raised issues which may be resolved only by application of provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code and that the trial court’s findings and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bernick v. JurdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Coble v. CobleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Tennessee Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Coggins v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  5. Taylor v. GillespieCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Tolbert v. HiattCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. CLM EQUIP. COMPANY, INC.District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2002
  3. J.M. Smith Corp. v. MatthewsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  4. Young & McQueen Grading Co. v. Mar-Comm & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  5. BRUCE-TERMINIX COMPANY v. THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2023

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API