Sis Radio, Inc. v. Brogan

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Sis Radio, Inc. v. Brogan

182 S.E.2d 594, 12 N.C. App. 172, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1320

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 4, 1971

DocketNo. 7126DC478

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 182 S.E.2d 594 (Sis Radio, Inc. v. Brogan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sis Radio, Inc. v. Brogan, 182 S.E.2d 594, 12 N.C. App. 172, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1320 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

BROCK, Judge.

In its complaint plaintiff alleges in paragraph 3 that a copy of the said contract is attached and incorporated by reference. Because the alleged contract is made a part of the complaint and is the only basis upon which plaintiff alleges a right of recovery, we will be governed by its particular provisions rather than the conclusions alleged by plaintiff. Williamson v. Miller, 231 N.C. 722, 58 S.E. 2d 743.

[173]*173The document relied upon by plaintiff does not specify any type of performance by plaintiff. If defendant had undertaken to sue plaintiff upon this document, he could not show by it what plaintiff’s performance was to be, he could not show when plaintiff was to begin performance, and he could not show how long plaintiff was to perform. In short the document does not specify a consideration moving from plaintiff to defendant. “It is well settled, as a general rule, that consideration is an essential element of, and is necessary to the enforceability or validity of, a contract.” 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, § 86, p. 428.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Vaughn concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BROCK, Judge.

In its complaint plaintiff alleges in paragraph 3 that a copy of the said contract is attached and incorporated by reference. Because the alleged contract is made a part of the complaint and is the only basis upon which plaintiff alleges a right of recovery, we will be governed by its particular provisions rather than the conclusions alleged by plaintiff. Williamson v. Miller, 231 N.C. 722, 58 S.E. 2d 743.

[173]*173The document relied upon by plaintiff does not specify any type of performance by plaintiff. If defendant had undertaken to sue plaintiff upon this document, he could not show by it what plaintiff’s performance was to be, he could not show when plaintiff was to begin performance, and he could not show how long plaintiff was to perform. In short the document does not specify a consideration moving from plaintiff to defendant. “It is well settled, as a general rule, that consideration is an essential element of, and is necessary to the enforceability or validity of, a contract.” 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, § 86, p. 428.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.E.2d 594, 12 N.C. App. 172, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sis-radio-inc-v-brogan-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack