Morris v. Deerfield Episcopal Retirement Community, Inc.
North Carolina Court of Appeals
179 N.C. App. 863, 635 S.E.2d 536 (2006)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
In June 2000, Robert Morris (plaintiff) and Frances Morris entered a residential services contract with Deerfield Episcopal Retirement Community, Inc. (Deerfield) (defendant) for an independent-living apartment within the Deerfield community. In the contract, Deerfield stated it would provide a dementia daycare program for an additional fee and would create an on-site, secured recreational area for residents with dementia. Deerfield’s contract did not promise the dementia daycare program would be on-site. In February 2001, Deerfield finished constructing a secured garden for residents with dementia and started running an on-site dementia daycare program. Because only a few residents participated, Deerfield soon after contracted with a nearby dementia daycare facility to provide off-site dementia daycare services for residents. In November 2002, Frances started showing signs of dementia. Robert requested a larger accommodation from Deerfield, believing it would help Frances’s dementia. After a cost dispute, the Morrises left Deerfield. Frances never used any of Deerfield’s dementia services, and Robert admitted he was unaware the services were available. Robert sued Deerfield, alleging that Deerfield (1) breached its contract by failing to provide on-site dementia daycare; and (2) engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by advertising an on-site dementia daycare program. Deerfield moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. Robert appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wynn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
