Per section 13 of the parties agreements Default : If in Default twenty (20) days after receipt from of written notice thereof, may declare this Agreement terminated and, may retain all Deposits, as liquidated and agreed upon damages which shall be deemed to have sustained and suffered as a result of such Default. 827, 829, 534 S.E.2d 653, 654 (2000) (a matter of contract interpretation raising a question of law is reviewed de novo).
#The vue charlotte trial
Where, as here, a contract is in writing and free from any ambiguity which would require resort to extrinsic evidence, or the consideration of disputed fact, the intention of the parties is a question of law, id., and a ruling on that issue by the trial court is reviewed de novo. 440, 470, 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004) (trial court s ruling on motion for summary judgment reviewed de novo). 58, 66, 614 S.E.2d 328, 335 (trial court s ruling on motion for judgment on pleadings reviewed de novo), disc.
In 3, the issue was brought before the trial court by Plaintiff-purchasers partial motion for summary judgment. 518, 520, 50 2 In 3, the parties brought this issue before the trial court by filing cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. at 410, 200 S.E.2d at 624 (quoting Electric Co. The intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the expressions used, the subject matter, the end in view, the purpose sought, and the situation of the parties at the time. Whenever a court is called upon to interpret a contract its primary purpose is to ascertain the intention of the parties at the moment of its execution. Although the procedural postures of the two appeals differ,2 the dispositive issue on appeal in each case is the same: whether the trial court erred in interpreting the agreements to limit The VUE s remedy for Purchasers breach to liquidated damages and to preclude The VUE from enforcing the agreements by specific performance. The purchase agreements at issue are identical in all respects relevant to the issues on appeal. Because we agree that each order is a final judgment on one or more but fewer than all of the claims in each case, and because the trial court appropriately certified each order for appeal, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeals. As such, the trial court certified each order for immediate appeal pursuant to N.C. However, in each order, the trial court concluded that the order constitutes a final judgment on The VUE s claim for specific performance and that there is no just reason to delay appeal. Sherman, Defendantappellees in 11-594, Plaintiff-appellees in and Gholam 11-595 Jafari and (collectively, Nosrat Ghasemi, Purchasers ), breached their agreements to purchase condominiums from The VUE and that The VUE is entitled to specific performance of the 1 We note that each order from which The VUE appeals is an interlocutory order that does not dispose of all claims before the trial court.
The appeals arise from The VUE s claims before the trial court that Mary G. The appeals by The VUE-Charlotte, LLC and The VUE North Carolina, LLC (collectively, The VUE ), who are Plaintiff- appellants in 11-594 and Defendant-appellants in 11-595, raise identical issues of law.1 Therefore, we have consolidated the appeals for decision pursuant to Rule 40 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2Richardson Law Group, by Plaintiffs in 3. Higgins, for Plaintiffs in 3 and Defendants in 3. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 October 2011. Lane Williamson in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Appeals by Plaintiffs in 3 and Defendants in 3 from orders in each action entered 19 April 2011 by Judge F. 3 THE VUE-CHARLOTTE, LLC and THE VUE NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, Defendants. SHERMAN, II, Defendants GHOLAM JAFARI and NOSRAT GHASEMI, Plaintiffs, v. COA11-594 11-595 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 December 2011 THE VUE-CHARLOTTE, LLC, and THE VUE NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, Plaintiffs, v.
0 kommentar(er)
