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.
Recommended Citation
James T. Newman Jr., Application of the Uniform Commercial Code to Option Contracts for the Sale of Goods, and Implying Promises to Find Sufficient Consideration: Why and How the North Carolina Supreme Court Got It Wrong in Fordham v. Eason, 23 Campbell L. Rev. 49 (2000).