Willis v. Russell
1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3315, 315 S.E.2d 91, 68 N.C. App. 424 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A directed verdict is improper if the plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for jury consideration, as contract acceptance can be manifested orally or through conduct without a formal signature.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, an architect, offered to provide architectural design services for defendants' condominium project.
- Discussions between plaintiff and defendants covered both the entire condominium project and the schematic design phase, and the fees for these services were clearly stated.
- Defendants instructed the plaintiff to begin the architectural work.
- Defendants approved the plaintiff's work as it progressed.
- Defendants approved the fee and profit schedules provided by the plaintiff.
- Defendants subsequently refused to sign a formal written contract for the architectural services.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendants, alleging a breach of contract for architectural services.
- During the trial, defendants made motions for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff for a specific amount, which was less than what the plaintiff sought and was made over the plaintiff's objection.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's directed verdict to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- Defendants cross-appealed the trial court's earlier refusals to either direct a verdict in their favor or to direct a verdict for plaintiff in an even lesser amount to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by granting a directed verdict for the plaintiff on a breach of contract claim, thereby taking from the jury the determination of whether an express contract existed, its full terms, and the appropriate measure of damages, or, in the alternative, the reasonable value of services under quantum meruit?
Opinions:
Majority - Phillips, Judge
Yes, the trial court erred by granting a directed verdict for the plaintiff, as there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether an express contract existed, its terms, and the appropriate damages, or alternatively, the reasonable value of services under quantum meruit. Judge Phillips, writing for the majority, explained that a motion for a directed verdict tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's evidence — including offering services, clear fee discussions, defendants' instruction to begin work, and approval of work and fee schedules — constituted a prima facie case for breach of contract, making it a matter for the jury. The court emphasized that a contract's acceptance can be shown orally or by conduct, not solely by a signature, citing Executive Leasing Associates, Inc. v. Rowland. The court also noted that even if a breach of contract case wasn't made, it was error for the court to decide the quantum meruit issue itself. If an express contract for the entire project is found, damages would include prospective profits, provided they are reasonably certain, ascertainable, and within the parties' contemplation (Perkins v. Langdon). If no express contract is found, quantum meruit would apply, with damages being the reasonable value of services rendered (Doub v. Hauser, Harrell v. W. B. Lloyd Construction Co.). The defendants' cross-appeal was dismissed because they cannot appeal from a judgment that resulted from their own insistence, as litigants cannot "blow hot and cold." The court also clarified that an unexecuted written contract is admissible only for corroboration, not as substantive evidence, if the contract sued upon is oral.
Concurring - Wells, Judge
Judge Wells concurred with the majority's decision to dismiss the defendants' appeal and grant the plaintiff a new trial. Judge Wells agreed with the dismissal of the defendants' appeal and the necessity of a new trial for the plaintiff. He added that, upon retrial, the jury should be instructed that the defendants, by their motion for a directed verdict for the plaintiff, had judicially admitted owing the plaintiff at least $7,032.50.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent standard for directed verdicts, underscoring the jury's crucial role in resolving factual disputes when a prima facie case is presented. It reinforces that contract formation does not solely depend on a formal signature, as oral agreements and conduct can signify acceptance. The ruling also differentiates the measure of damages between express contracts (including prospective profits) and quantum meruit (reasonable value of services), guiding future trials in applying appropriate damage calculations.
