•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The North Carolina Supreme Court rarely ventures into cases involving contract disputes. However, in Fordham v. Eason, the court granted discretionary review to decide which of two logging companies had title to certain timber that each company had separately bargained for. In its analysis, the court's discussion of consideration was incomplete. Further, the court erred by refusing to apply the Uniform Commercial Code to an option contract for the sale of timber. This article explores the mistakes in the Fordham opinion and examines why the court will probably have to reevaluate its decision at some point in the future.

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.