{
  "id": 8567665,
  "name": "TAROKH TAEFI v. VERNON R. STEVENS and JOANNE B. STEVENS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taefi v. Stevens",
  "decision_date": "1982-03-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 148A81",
  "first_page": "291",
  "last_page": "292",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "305 N.C. 291"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "281 S.E. 2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522472
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/53/0579-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 192,
    "char_count": 2406,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.796,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.268124753214928e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4330594177498379
    },
    "sha256": "9b0170575dad920c435f6112c99c86b2950bab01cda96cfe79d57e88e96e9933",
    "simhash": "1:10fefa320f0765ee",
    "word_count": 403
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:50.465071+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TAROKH TAEFI v. VERNON R. STEVENS and JOANNE B. STEVENS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe facts are adequately stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Defendants contend that the Court of Appeals has incorrectly stated the rule for damages in a breach of contract for the sale of real estate. We do not agree. We have carefully reviewed the opinion of that court and the briefs and authorities relating to defendants\u2019 contentions. We conclude that the result reached by the Court of Appeals, its reasoning, and the legal principles enunciated by it are correct and adopt that opinion as our own with a single minor modification. After correctly quoting the rule stated in 77 Am. Jur. 2d Vendor and Purchaser \u00a7 489 (1975) to the effect, in pertinent part, that the compensation to which the vendor is entitled is \u201climited to such damages as may reasonably be supposed to have been within the contemplation of the parties when they made the contract . . .\u201d (emphasis added), the writer of the opinion, in subsequently stating that court\u2019s belief that the jury could find that certain items of damages could have been within the contemplation of the parties at the pertinent time, used the words \u201cat the time of the breach of the contract.\u201d (emphasis added). We believe this was obviously inadvertent and that the writer intended the proper time of determination to be when the contract to purchase was entered into.\nExcept as herein modified, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nModified and affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Perry, Patrick, Farmer & Michaux, P.A., by Roy H. Michaux, Jr., Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee.",
      "Richard A. Cohan, Attorney for Defendant-Appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TAROKH TAEFI v. VERNON R. STEVENS and JOANNE B. STEVENS\nNo. 148A81\n(Filed 3 March 1982)\nVendor and Purchaser \u00a7 8\u2014 breach of contract to purchase \u2014 measure of damages \u2014pertinent time\nIn an action for breach of a contract to purchase real estate, the vendor is entitled to recover items of damages which were within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered rather than at the time of the breach.\nON defendants\u2019 petition for discretionary review, pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 7A-31, of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 53 N.C. App. 579, 281 S.E. 2d 435 (1981), reversing the action of the trial judge in setting aside a verdict for the plaintiff and entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants at the 7 July 1980 Session of Superior Court, MECKLENBURG County.\nPerry, Patrick, Farmer & Michaux, P.A., by Roy H. Michaux, Jr., Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee.\nRichard A. Cohan, Attorney for Defendant-Appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0291-01",
  "first_page_order": 323,
  "last_page_order": 324
}