# Custom Molders, Inc. v. Roper Corp.

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · February 19, 1991 · 101 N.C. App. 606

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574245

## Case

- **Full name:** Custom Molders, Inc. v. Roper Corporation
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 19, 1991
- **Citations:** 101 N.C. App. 606; 401 S.E.2d 96; 1991 N.C. App. LEXIS 155
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wells
- **Judges:** Phillips, Wells, Parker
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574245

## Opinion text

Judge WELLS
concurring.
In the breach of contract context, the dispositive issue in this case is whether plaintiff should have been allowed to rely on the oral representations of defendant’s employees pertaining to an all-requirements, life-of-the-part commitment, or, whether plaintiff was limited to the written terms of defendant’s purchase orders. I am of the opinion that under the provisions of our Uniform Commercial Code, G.S. 25-2-202, plaintiff was not confined to the written terms of the purchase orders.
As to the Unfair Trade Practices claim, if there was evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that defendant represented to plaintiff that it would give plaintiff all of its footpad business for the Craftsman mower, but never intended to abide by that promise, then this issue was correctly resolved in plaintiff’s favor. Although the evidence on this point was only circumstantial, it appears to me that the dealings between these parties over the course of their relationship would allow that inference.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574245. Public record. Not legal advice.