Mewborn v. Haddock
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Plaintiffs assert that the payment and acceptance of a larger sum of money, namely, $3,000 instead of $2,600, 27 days after the specified due date, as provided in the lease agreement, constituted a variance of the contractual agreement sufficient to create a new contract between the parties and was therefore a novation and created a tenancy from year to year terminable upon 30 days’ notice prior to the expiration of the term.
For their position the plaintiffs rely upon the logic in Coulter v. Finance Co., 266 N.C. 214, 146 S.E. 2d 97 (1966).
Coulter is clearly distinguishable…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Coulter v. Capitol Finance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Office Enterprises, Inc. v. PappasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
3Cited by1 opinion
- Community Housing Alternatives, Inc. v. LattaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987