{
  "id": 8526423,
  "name": "DURHAM LIFE BROADCASTING, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL CARPET OUTLET, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Durham Life Broadcasting, Inc. v. International Carpet Outlet, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1983-09-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 8210DC1036",
  "first_page": "787",
  "last_page": "788",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. App. 787"
    }
  ],
  "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": "230 S.E. 2d 576",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "577"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552426
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "719"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/31/0717-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S.E. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1915,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "628"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 N.C. 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661368
      ],
      "year": 1915,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "719"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/169/0717-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 366",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "373"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558908
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "483"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0473-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 2926,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.854,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20557125145133945
    },
    "sha256": "cc935b94a140a0e8c5671f31922abb257353767abab7a1e7d55b3b16404ab790",
    "simhash": "1:f3521e62c56767fc",
    "word_count": 483
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:10.514065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and Braswell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DURHAM LIFE BROADCASTING, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL CARPET OUTLET, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nWhen an action is brought by a plaintiff, it has the burden of proof of establishing a right to recover. It must allege and prove all the essential elements of its cause of action. See Wiles v. Mullinax, 275 N.C. 473, 483, 168 S.E. 2d 366, 373 (1969). In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a contract, which was a prerequisite to its right of recovery.\nG.S. 8-45 does not establish the existence of a contract as the plaintiff argues. That statute says:\nIn any actions instituted in any court of this State upon an account for goods sold and delivered, for rents, for services rendered, or labor performed, or upon any oral contract for money loaned, a verified itemized statement of such account shall be received in evidence, and shall be deemed prima facie evidence of its correctness.\nThis statute is applicable only where there is no dispute about an account. Nall v. Kelly, 169 N.C. 717, 719, 86 S.E. 627, 628 (1915); Bramco Elec. Corp. v. Shell, 31 N.C. App. 717, 719, 230 S.E. 2d 576, 577 (1976); 1 Brandis, N.C. Evidence \u00a7 157 (2d rev. ed. 1982). There is clearly a dispute in the case sub judice where the defendant denies the existence of a contract.\nBecause the plaintiff did not show the existence of a contract, judgment was properly entered for the defendant.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Webb and Braswell concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith, Debnam, Hibbert & Pahl, by Bettie Kelley Sousa, for plaintiff-appe llant.",
      "Gulley and Barrow, by H. Spencer Barrow, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DURHAM LIFE BROADCASTING, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL CARPET OUTLET, INC.\nNo. 8210DC1036\n(Filed 6 September 1983)\nContracts \u00a7 25\u2014 failure to prove existence of contract\nPlaintiff failed to prove a right to recover on an account for advertisements when plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a contract, which was a prerequisite to its right to recovery. Exhibits which included an itemized statement of account and supporting invoices pursuant to G.S. 8-45 did not establish the existence of a contract and did not entitle plaintiff to recover since there was a dispute concerning the existence of a contract.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Barnett, Judge. Judgment entered 11 May 1982 in District Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 August 1983.\nThis action was brought to recover on an account for advertisements run on WPTF, a Raleigh radio station owned by the plaintiff.\nGeorgia Smith, the plaintiffs collections coordinator, was the only witness at trial. Exhibits offered into evidence included an itemized statement of account and supporting invoices. The defendant presented no evidence but denied that it requested or contracted for the advertisements to be run.\nAfter arguments by counsel for both parties, the trial judge held for the defendant because there was no contract which authorized the plaintiff to air the advertisements on the defendant\u2019s behalf. From this judgment, the plaintiff appealed.\nSmith, Debnam, Hibbert & Pahl, by Bettie Kelley Sousa, for plaintiff-appe llant.\nGulley and Barrow, by H. Spencer Barrow, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0787-01",
  "first_page_order": 819,
  "last_page_order": 820
}
