Legal Opinion

McMichael v. Borough Motors, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 24, 1972No. 7226SC30PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAHAM, Judge.

Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to show the nature and extent of the services to be performed by plaintiff as consideration for the compensation promised in the letter from defendant’s sales manager, dated 24 April 1967 and introduced in evidence as plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.

“A contract for service must be certain and definite as to the nature and extent of the service to be performed, the place where, and the person to whom it is to be rendered, and the compensation to be paid, or it will not be enforced.” Croom v. Lumber Co., 182 N.C. 217, 108 S.E. 735. It is not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Croom v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  2. Coggins v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  3. Laughter v. LambertCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Beal v. KH STEPHENSON SUPPLY CO., INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Humphrey v. HillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  3. Ayden Tractors, Inc. v. GaskinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  4. Fletcher v. FletcherCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
  5. T.W.T. Distributing, Inc. v. Johnson Products Co.District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2013

2 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