Legal Opinion

Hyman v. . Broughton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 3, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.

The contract of sale was in writing and contained the usual stipulation that no oral agreement formed any part of the contract. The allegations in the counterclaim or cross-action of defendant are not sufficient to raise the issue of fraud in the inducement of the contract. Colt v. Kimball, 190 N. C., 169, 129 S. E., 406; Colt v. Conner, 194 N. C., 344, 139 S. E., 694. However, the defendant contends tbat in all sales of personal property without inspection there is an implied warranty tbat the property can be used for the purpose for which it was purchased. It is to be observed tbat there…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hampton Guano Co. v. Hill Live-Stock Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Colt v. . KimballSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  3. Swift Co. v. . AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Hall Furniture Co. v. Crane Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Main v. Griffin.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Perfecting Service Co. v. Product Development & Sales Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Feibus & Co. v. Godley Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  3. Liris S.A. v. Morris & Associates, Inc.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API