Matthew Strum v. Exxon Company, Usa, a Division of Exxon Corporation Exxon Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the mere allegation that promissor never intended to honor its obligations is insufficient to overcome dismissal
• applying North Carolina law and reasoning that “[p]arties contract partly to minimize their future risks. Importing tort law principles of punishment into contract undermines their ability to do so.”
• applying North Carolina law and reasoning that “[p]arties contract partly to minimize their future risks. Importing tort law principles of punishment into contract undermines their ability to do so.”
• Rejecting a plaintiffs contention that “because issues of motive and intent are difficult to resolve on summary judgment, he deserves an opportunity to have his fraudulent inducement claim presented to a jury.”
• rejecting plaintiff’s attempt to “manufacture a tort dispute out of what is, at bottom, a simple breach of contract claim” because it is “inconsistent both with North Carolina law and sound commercial practice.”
• applying North Carolina law and citing Newton, 291 N.C. at 111–12, 229 S.E.2d at 301 and Asheville Contracting Co. v. City of Wilson, 62 N.C. App. 329, 342, 303 S.E.2d 365, 373 (1983)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).