Buffaloe v. Hart

Buffaloe v. Hart
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
Full case nameHomer Buffaloe v. Patricia Hart and Lowell Thomas HART
SubmittedFebruary 4, 1994
DecidedMarch 15, 1994
Citation(s)114 N.C. App. 52, 441 S.E.2d 172, 1994 N.C. App. LEXIS 267
Holding
affirmed a judgment
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingK. Edward Greene, Jack Cozort and Robert F. Orr
Case opinions
MajorityK. Edward Greene, joined by unanimous

Buffaloe v. Hart, 114 N.C. App. 52 (1994)[1] was a North Carolina Court of Appeals case dealing with a breach of contract.

Background

Homer Buffaloe verbally agreed to buy five tobacco barns in Franklin County from Lowell Thomas Hart and Patricia Hart. Buffaloe had previously rented the barns based on verbal agreements. Both parties agreed to sell the barns in four annual installments based on a handshake deal without any written documentation. Buffaloe sent them a personal check with the purpose written in the subject line but they sent it back to him as they had found a buyer willing to pay more. Buffaloe sued for breach of contract.

Decision

According to Buffaloe, part performance on one party's behalf can trump the statute of frauds requirements outlined in the Uniform Commercial Code which requires the contract be in writing. In contract law, the sale of goods exceeding $500 is governed by the UCC. Additionally, the UCC calls for a written agreement to accompany the sale of goods in certain instances.

The jury decided in favor of Homer Buffaloe.

References

  1. ^ "Buffaloe v. Hart". Justia Law. January 10, 2022. Retrieved January 23, 2022. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  • v
  • t
  • e
Contract formation
Offer and acceptance
Implied-in-fact contract
Mailbox rule
Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap, Browsewrap agreements
Consideration
Substantial performance
Privity & 3rd parties
Implied warranty, caveat emptor
Defense against formation
Illusory promise
Statute of frauds (written) & Parol evidence (unwritten & informal)
Unconscionable
Cancelling Contract
Mistake
Illegality
Misrepresentation
Quasi-contract obligation
Promissory estoppel
Unjust enrichment