Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Dysart v. Cummings

North Carolina Court of Appeals
640 S.E.2d 832 (2007)


Facts

Christian Dysart and Mildred Dysart (plaintiffs) entered into a contract to buy a house from William Cummings and Kimberly Cummings (defendants) on August 26, 2003. Under the terms of the agreement, the Dysarts paid a deposit. An addendum provided that the Dysarts had the option to terminate the agreement and recoup the deposit if a reasonable estimate of the cost of repairs, including repairs for general, foundational, and termite damage, was $10,000 or more. The contract further stated that the Dysarts should have the home inspected and notify the Cummings of any necessary repairs in writing within 14 days of the contract’s execution. On September 8, 2003, the Dysarts’ home inspector reported significant foundational damage, and a structural engineer estimated the cost of the damages at over $10,000. On September 9, Bill Sewell, the Dysarts’ real-estate agent, faxed a notice to Mary Williams, the Cummings’ agent, stating that the Dysarts had decided to terminate the contract in accordance with the addendum. The same day, the Cummings placed the house back on the market. Thereafter, a construction company gave the Dysarts an estimate for the cost of repair at $58,910.23, and the Dysarts demanded a return of the deposit. The Cummings refused and hired a contractor who calculated the cost of repair at less than $10,000 and went on to complete the repairs for $6,986.11. The Dysarts brought suit against the Cummings to recover the deposit, alleging a breach of contract. The Cummings counterclaimed, and the Dysarts moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Dysarts’ motion, and the Cummings appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Tyson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Stephens, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Stroud, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.