Page 57 |
Previous | 57 of 843 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.1 COURT OF APPEALS 29
Stewart v. Insurance Co.
"Accordingly, in order to constitute a valid contract there
must be an offer and an acceptance in the exact terms and the
same sense, and the acceptance must be communicated to the
offeror."
"An offer must be definite and complete, and a mere pro-posal
intended to open negotiations which contains no definite
terms but refers to contingencies to be worked out cannot consti-tute
the basis of a contract, even though accepted." 2 Strong,
N. C. Index 2d, Contracts, S 2, p. 294.
[I] Plaintiff, at best, has presented us with details of a con-ference
convened at his request to discuss the terms of an
employment contract for continued association with the defend-ant.
We are given terms of compensation allegedly proffered to
plaintiff during the course of the discussion, without any cor-relative
conditions of employment, duties of the plaintiff, or
provisions for termination. The only offer which plaintiff has
testified was communicated to him, was unacceptable to him, and
immediately rejected.
In the absence of an agreement reflecting a meeting of the
minds based upon a sufficient consideration, with an offer and
acceptance or mutuality of obligations or promises, we can find
no contractual agreement based upon plaintiff's recapitulation
of the discussion which took place in the February 1968 confer-ence.
Plaintiff, therefore, has shown no right to recover damages
under a breach of contract theory. All other contentions by
plaintiff, based upon an existing contract, are likewise without
merit.
[2] Plaintiff has also asserted that the case should have gone
to the jury on the issue of quantum meruit, even if plaintiff
failed to prove an express contract.
We agree with plaintiff's contention that under the law
of quasi contracts, when one party renders services to another
without an express contract for payment for such services, the
law implies a promise to pay fair compensation, and failure to
establish an express contract will not preclude recovery upon
the implied promise. See 6 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Quasi Con-tracts,
$ 1. However, we do not agree with plaintiff that he did
not receive fair compensation for his services rendered in 1968.
Plaintiff testified that his W-2 form for the year 1968 re-flected
gross payment to plaintiff by defendant in the amount
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.020, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 20, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974. Cited as 20 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 34.5 MB; 842 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_020.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 57 |
| Full Text | N.C.App.1 COURT OF APPEALS 29 Stewart v. Insurance Co. "Accordingly, in order to constitute a valid contract there must be an offer and an acceptance in the exact terms and the same sense, and the acceptance must be communicated to the offeror." "An offer must be definite and complete, and a mere pro-posal intended to open negotiations which contains no definite terms but refers to contingencies to be worked out cannot consti-tute the basis of a contract, even though accepted." 2 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Contracts, S 2, p. 294. [I] Plaintiff, at best, has presented us with details of a con-ference convened at his request to discuss the terms of an employment contract for continued association with the defend-ant. We are given terms of compensation allegedly proffered to plaintiff during the course of the discussion, without any cor-relative conditions of employment, duties of the plaintiff, or provisions for termination. The only offer which plaintiff has testified was communicated to him, was unacceptable to him, and immediately rejected. In the absence of an agreement reflecting a meeting of the minds based upon a sufficient consideration, with an offer and acceptance or mutuality of obligations or promises, we can find no contractual agreement based upon plaintiff's recapitulation of the discussion which took place in the February 1968 confer-ence. Plaintiff, therefore, has shown no right to recover damages under a breach of contract theory. All other contentions by plaintiff, based upon an existing contract, are likewise without merit. [2] Plaintiff has also asserted that the case should have gone to the jury on the issue of quantum meruit, even if plaintiff failed to prove an express contract. We agree with plaintiff's contention that under the law of quasi contracts, when one party renders services to another without an express contract for payment for such services, the law implies a promise to pay fair compensation, and failure to establish an express contract will not preclude recovery upon the implied promise. See 6 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Quasi Con-tracts, $ 1. However, we do not agree with plaintiff that he did not receive fair compensation for his services rendered in 1968. Plaintiff testified that his W-2 form for the year 1968 re-flected gross payment to plaintiff by defendant in the amount |
