Mezzanotte v. Freeland
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
200 S.E.2d 410 (1973)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
In May 1972, the Mezzanottes (plaintiffs) and Freelands (defendants) entered into an agreement for the Freelands to sell real property to the Mezzanottes. The agreement provided that the sale was contingent on the Mezzanottes obtaining a “second mortgage from North Carolina National Bank on such terms and conditions as are satisfactory to them ….” The Mezzanottes failed to secure the loan from North Carolina National Bank but obtained funding through alternative sources. In September, they delivered to the Freelands a $200,000 down payment as well as a note and deed of trust for the balance of the purchase price. The Freelands refused to sell, however, and the Mezzanottes brought suit for specific performance of the sale and for damages for breach of contract. In defense, the Freelands contended that the May contract was unenforceable for lack of consideration because the Mezzanottes’ receipt of funding was conditioned on the loan being “satisfactory to them.” The Freelands argued that such condition made the Mezzanottes’ promise illusory. The trial court disagreed, concluding that the agreement was valid and that the Mezzanottes’ tender of payment constituted substantial compliance with the contract. The Freelands appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.