{ "id": 8555347, "name": "ALBEMARLE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC. v. A. B. BASNIGHT", "name_abbreviation": "Albemarle Educational Foundation, Inc. v. Basnight", "decision_date": "1969-05-28", "docket_number": "No. 691DC202", "first_page": "652", "last_page": "655", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "4 N.C. App. 652" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "170 S.E. 916", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N.C. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627937 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 676", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617434 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 N.C. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2221607 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "183" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/209/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621699 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.E. 216", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 N.C. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656775 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/169/0119-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 N.C. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276542 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/50/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 1020", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661027 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/165/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.E. 616", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 N.C. 653", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271554 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0653-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 S.E. 15", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 N.C. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653901 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/188/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568256, 8568203 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0139-02", "/nc/263/0139-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 461, "char_count": 7921, "ocr_confidence": 0.6, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8516182846861315e-07, "percentile": 0.7235890972794167 }, "sha256": "49a2bfa3c0b039e9b2ccd8b2ae2a7f13c33f4e74b9c029b761aee22a06b22867", "simhash": "1:73e7ad26792b357f", "word_count": 1295 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:38.610889+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Mall\u00e1RD, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "ALBEMARLE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC. v. A. B. BASNIGHT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Britt, J.\nThe question presented is whether plaintiff\u2019s evidence, taken in the light most favorable to it, presents facts sufficient to justify a jury in finding that the parties had created a binding contract.\nDefendant does not contest the existence of an offer. It is established law that an acceptance, unless otherwise specified, may be communicated by any means sufficient to manifest assent. 1 Corbin on Contracts, 1963 Ed., \u00a7 67, p. 275; American Law Institute, Restatement of Contracts, \u00a7\u00a7 61, 64, pp. 67, 70. On this basis, the letter of 17 August 1967 could be found to constitute an acceptance of the offer made by the application.\nDefendant insists that the purported contract relied on by plaintiff was not supported by sufficient consideration. In Helicopter Corp. v. Realty Co., 263 N.C. 139, 139 S.E. 2d 362, we find the following: \u201c* * * Tt may be stated as a general rule that \u201cconsideration\u201d in the sense the term is used in legal parlance, as affecting the enforceability of simple contracts, consists of some benefit or advantage to the promisor, or some loss or detriment to the promisee. Exum v. Lynch, 188 N.C. 392, 125 S.E. 15; Cherokee County v. Meroney, 173 N.C. 653, 92 S.E. 616; Institute v. Mebane, 165 N.C. 644, 81 S.E. 1020; Findley v. Ray, 50 N.C. 125. It has been held that \u201cthere is a consideration if the promisee, in return for the promise, does anything legal which he is not bound to do, or refrains from doing anything which he has a right to do, whether there is any actual loss or detriment to him or actual benefit to the promisor or not.\u201d 17 C.J.S. 426. Spencer v. Bynum, 169 N.C. 119, 85 S.E. 216; Basketeria Stores v. Indemnity Co., 204 N.C. 537, 168 S.E. 822; Grubb v. Motor Co., 209 N.C. 88, 183 (sic) S.E. 730.\u2019 Stonestreet v. Oil Co., 226 N.C. 261, 37 S.E. 2d 676; Bank v. Harrington, 205 N.C. 244, 170 S.E. 916.\u201d\nIn the present case, plaintiff offered evidence of the purchase of textbooks and hiring of teachers based upon the expectation of receipt of the tuition from defendant. This could be found sufficient to indicate an increase in the plaintiff\u2019s expenses as a result of defendant\u2019s actions.\nNothing appears from the plaintiff\u2019s evidence to indicate that the defendant\u2019s daughter acted for anyone but herself in her actions in June 1967. Moreover, it is not clear that the plaintiff was put on notice by the daughter\u2019s telephone call that it should not expect to receive the tuition, since the application had specifically provided that it could not be withdrawn or cancelled after submission.\nConsidering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that the plaintiff offered evidence sufficient, if believed, to entitle it to relief. Therefore, the motion for nonsuit should have been overruled.\nReversed.\nMall\u00e1RD, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Britt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "E. Bay Etheridge for plaintiff appellant.", "John T. Chaffin for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ALBEMARLE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC. v. A. B. BASNIGHT\nNo. 691DC202\n(Filed 28 May 1969)\n1. Schools \u00a7 3; Contracts \u00a7 37\u2014 private school \u2014 action for tuition \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn an action by a private school to recover tuition on a contract of enrollment, evidence that plaintiff sent to the parents of each child in attendance an enrollment application for the next school year, that the application contained the statement, \u201cREAD CAREFULLY, THIS IS A CONTRACT AGREEMENT,\u201d and provided that once submitted the application was not subject to withdrawal or cancellation by applicants, that the defendant parent signed the enrollment application on behalf of his daughter, that the application was subsequently approved by plaintiff\u2019s board of directors, and that plaintiff purchased textbooks and hired teachers upon the expectation of tuition from defendant, held sufficient to support a jury finding that the parties had created a binding agreement.\n3. Contracts \u00a7 3\u2014 communication of acceptance\nAn acceptance, unless otherwise specified, may be communicated by any means sufficient to manifest assent.\n3. Contracts \u00a7 4\u2014 consideration\nConsideration consists of some benefit or advantage to the promisor, or some loss or detriment to the promisee.\n4. Contracts \u00a7 4\u2014 consideration\nThere is a consideration if the promisee, in return for the promise, does anything legal which he is not bound to do, or refrains from doing anything which he has a right to do, whether there is any actual loss or detriment to him or actual benefit to the promisor or not.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Privott, J., at the 25 November 196S Civil Session of PasquotanK District Court.\nPlaintiff filed its complaint 19 June 1968 alleging that the parties had entered into a contract for enrollment of the defendant's daughter in the school operated by plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleged acts in reliance upon the contract, demand on the defendant for the tuition in the amount of $370.00, and refusal of the defendant to pay.\nDefendant answered 18 July 1968 denying the existence of a contract and alleging that his daughter attended the school during the school year 1966-1967 but not during 1967-1968, that plaintiff has rendered no services of value to the defendant for which it has not been paid, and that plaintiff was notified in May or June of 1967 that defendant\u2019s daughter would not attend.\nPlaintiff replied 29 July 1968 denying the allegations of defendant\u2019s further answer, except admitting that defendant\u2019s daughter did not attend the school during the school year 1967-1968.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show the following: Defendant\u2019s daughter attended Albemarle Academy and took an active part in its programs during the year 1966-1967. On 15 February 1967, the course offerings and programs were established for the following year. Immediately thereafter, a form letter was sent to the parents of each child in attendance during 1966-1967, advising them of the grades and courses to be offered, and the amounts of the tuition. A form labeled ApplicatioN Blank was enclosed. This form provided blanks to be filled in by the applicant, including birthdate, grade to be entered and various biographical and educational background information. Following this was the statement, \u201cRead Caeefully, This Is A CONTRACT AgreemeNt.\u201d After this statement was the following paragraph:\n\u201cWe understand that parents or guardians whose children are accepted by the Albemarle Academy are obligated to the school for the full tuition for that year of school should they withdraw or be withdrawn by school authorities before the end of the year. When a student enrolls, space is reserved and certain expenses incurred on behalf of the student. We understand that no records are released until all obligations of the student and parent or guardian to the school are satisfied in full. After submission, the application is not subject to withdrawal or cancellation by applicants.\nDate March 3, 1967 Sighed: /s/ A. B. Basnight\nParent or- Guardian /s/ Cindy Basnight\nStudent\u201d\nThe application was approved by plaintiff\u2019s Board of Directors on 11 April 1967. The application was initialed at the top and the approval was noted in the minutes of the Board. Plaintiff presented evidence of employment of teachers based on the number of approved applications and evidence relating to purchase of textbooks and supplies.\nIn June 1967, defendant\u2019s daughter, Cynthia, called the school and informed plaintiff\u2019s secretary that she had decided not to return to the Academy the next year.\nOn 17 August 1967, plaintiff wrote the defendant advising him that a binding contract had been signed by him and that the school wished to have a definite answer from him as to whether Cynthia would be in attendance. Prior to mailing the letter to defendant, there had been no communication by him to the plaintiff other than the application.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendant\u2019s motion for non-suit was granted. Plaintiff appealed.\nE. Bay Etheridge for plaintiff appellant.\nJohn T. Chaffin for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0652-01", "first_page_order": 672, "last_page_order": 675 }