Legal Opinion

City of Gastonia v. Duke Power Company

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 12, 1973No. 7327SC457PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

The parties to the 1929 contract which plaintiff now seeks to enforce failed to specify how long the provisions germane to this action should remain in effect. This State follows the generally accepted view that a contract of indefinite duration may be terminated by either party on giving reasonable notice. Rubber Co. v. Distributors, 253 N.C. 459, 117 S.E. 2d 479; Fulghum v. Selma and Griffis v. Selma, 238 N.C. 100, 76 S.E. 2d 368; Distributing Corp. v. Parts, Inc., 7 N. C. App. 483, 173 S.E. 2d 41. To avoid injustice, however, this rule is subject to thé qualification that…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. General Tire and Rubber Co. v. Distributors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Fulghum v. Town of SelmaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Atkinson v. WilkersonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
  4. Scarborough v. AdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  5. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. v. HicksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. United Roasters, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
  2. Citrini v. GoodwinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  3. Mark Seitman & Associates, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
  4. East Coast Development Corp. v. Alderman-250 Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  5. J.M. Smith Corp. v. MatthewsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996

5 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