{
  "id": 8524078,
  "name": "FORBES HOMES, INC., a North Carolina Corporation v. JOHN G. TRIMPI and TRIMPI, THOMPSON AND NASH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Forbes Homes, Inc. v. Trimpi",
  "decision_date": "1984-10-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 831DC1083",
  "first_page": "614",
  "last_page": "616",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 614"
    }
  ],
  "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": "222 S.E. 2d 412",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569569
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0303-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 S.E. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1938,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "39"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N.C. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629839
      ],
      "year": 1938,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 S.E. 2d 412",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569569
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0303-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 4658,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9188555871495202e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7326745690578872
    },
    "sha256": "1a54b1f468fb5238ff897fd5e4f984f5ab7468df52f14ca7fd8611c10946e06b",
    "simhash": "1:be8a10db186e485c",
    "word_count": 789
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:59.534868+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge Phillips concurs.",
      "Judge JOHNSON dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FORBES HOMES, INC., a North Carolina Corporation v. JOHN G. TRIMPI and TRIMPI, THOMPSON AND NASH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Judge.\nWe reverse the judgment of the District Court. The plaintiff has alleged facts which if offered in evidence would allow a jury to find the defendants promised the plaintiff that if the plaintiff would make certain payments for a third party, the defendants would retain from the proceeds of a claim they were handling for the third party funds with which they would reimburse the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted this offer by making the payments and the defendants have refused to reimburse the plaintiff from the proceeds of the settlement for the third party. If a jury should find these facts, the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff for breach of contract.\nThe defendants, relying on Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 222 S.E. 2d 412 (1976), argue that Mr. Trimpi was the agent of Mr. Simpson and that an agent acting within the scope of his authority is not liable for a contract made for his principal. We do not disagree with this statement of the law. If, as in this case, however, the agent agrees with the promisee that he will be bound by the contract he is so bound and is liable for the contract\u2019s breach.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudge Phillips concurs.\nJudge JOHNSON dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge Johnson\ndissenting.\nI respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I believe that under the holding of Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 222 S.E. 2d 412 (1976), the plaintiffs cause of action lies against the principal, Mr. Simpson, and not the agent, Mr. Trimpi. When a contract is made with a known agent, acting within the scope of his authority for a disclosed principal, the contract is that of the principal alone. See also, Jenkins v. City of Henderson, 214 N.C. 244, 247, 199 S.E. 37, 39 (1938). The letter from Mr. Trimpi to the plaintiff discloses that Mr. Trimpi was acting as an agent for his principal, Mr. Simpson, seeking to use the principal\u2019s funds to fulfill the obligations of the contract.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Judge Johnson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank B. Aycock, Jr., for plaintiff appellant",
      "Trimpi Thompson and Nash by Thomas P. Nash, IV, for defendants appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FORBES HOMES, INC., a North Carolina Corporation v. JOHN G. TRIMPI and TRIMPI, THOMPSON AND NASH\nNo. 831DC1083\n(Filed 2 October 1984)\nContracts 8 25.1\u2014 agent\u2019s agreement to make payments for third party \u2014 failure to pay \u2014 dismissal of action improper\nThe trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs action pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) where plaintiff alleged facts which, if offered in evidence, would allow a jury to find that defendant attorneys promised plaintiff that, if plaintiff would make certain payments for a third party, defendants would retain from the proceeds of a claim they were handling for the third party funds with which they would reimburse plaintiff; plaintiff accepted this offer by making the payments; defendants refused to reimburse plaintiff from the proceeds of the settlement for the third party; and if a jury should find these facts, the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff for breach of contract.\nJudge Johnson dissenting.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Beaman, Judge. Judgment entered 3 August 1983 in District Court, PASQUOTANK County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 August 1984.\nThe plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing its action. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant John G. Trimpi promised the plaintiff that if the plaintiff would make certain payments on behalf of Milford Simpson that Mr. Trimpi would reimburse the plaintiff from proceeds of a personal injury claim Mr. Trimpi v/as handling for Mr. Simpson. The plaintiff incorporated as part of its complaint a letter from Mr. Trimpi which said in part:\n\u201cSubject to Mr. Simpson\u2019s approval, which I feel certain he will give, this firm will make restitution to you out of the net proceeds from any settlement or court recovery we make with regard to Mr. Simpson\u2019s personal injury claim arising out of an accident occurring on March 17, 1979. If you do not hear from us within ten days from receipt of this letter, you may assume that Mr. Simpson has given us the authority to make such payment to you.\u201d\nThe plaintiff alleged further that it was not notified that Mr. Simpson had not given the defendant authority to pay the plaintiff from the proceeds of the personal injury claim and acting on the representations of the defendant it had made the payments totalling $4,192.92 on Mr. Simpson\u2019s account. The plaintiff alleged on information and belief that the personal injury claim had been settled and the defendant John Trimpi had refused to make payment as he had promised to do.\nThe Court granted the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) and the plaintiff appealed.\nFrank B. Aycock, Jr., for plaintiff appellant\nTrimpi Thompson and Nash by Thomas P. Nash, IV, for defendants appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0614-01",
  "first_page_order": 646,
  "last_page_order": 648
}