Preview:

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA06-250 NO. COA06-425 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: CABARRUS COUNTY Plaintiff, v. SYSTEL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Appeal by defendant from summary judgments entered 23 November 2005 by Judge W. Erwin Spainhour, and 24 January 2006 by Judge Clarence E. Horton, Jr., in Cabarrus County Superior Court. in the Court of Appeals 20 September 2006. Hartsell & Williams, P.A., by Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., and Christy E. Wilhelm, for plaintiff-appellee. Poyner & Spruill LLP, by E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, and Cynthia L. Van Horne, for defendant-appellant. LEVINSON, Judge. In Court of Appeals Case COA 06-250 defendant, Systel Business Equipment Company, Inc. ("Systel"), appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, Cabarrus County. In Court of Heard Cabarrus County No. 01 CVS 1722 19 December 2006

Appeals Case COA06-425 defendant appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of third party defendant Frank M. Clifton, Jr. Because these cases arise from the same lawsuit and share common

-2facts, we have consolidated these appeals for purposes of this opinion, and affirm both orders. The relevant facts may be briefly summarized, and are taken in part from Cabarrus Cty. v. Systel Bus. Equip. Co., 171 N.C. App. 423, 614 S.E.2d 596, disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 61, 621 S.E.2d 177 (2005). "[I]n December 1999, Cabarrus County issued a request The

for proposed bids from companies for photocopier services.

Board of County Commissioners voted on 18 January 2000 to award the contract to Systel." S.E.2d at 597. Cabarrus Cty., 171 N.C. App. at 424, 614

On 18 July 2000 plaintiff, Cabarrus County, and

Systel executed a contract for Systel to provide copier services for Cabarrus County. The contract included a "non appropriation

rider" allowing Cabarrus County to terminate the contract if the county did not appropriate funds for copier services after the first year. The contract and the rider were signed by the county

manager for Cabarrus County, Frank M. Clifton, Jr. ("Clifton"). "On 17 April 2001, Cabarrus County notified Systel that it was not renewing the copier contract as outlined in the Equipment Rental Agreement[.] . . . [Systel] claim[ed] that Cabarrus County remained obligated to use Systel's services under the [contract]. Cabarrus

County argued that the [contract] could not be enforced because, inter alia, it did not include a preaudit certificate as required by statute." Cabarrus Cty., id.

On 26 July 2001 Cabarrus County filed a complaint for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Cabarrus County sought a

declaration that the contract of 18 July 2000 was invalid and

-3unenforceable because it did not include the preaudit certificate required by N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 06-250-5.pdf

South Carolina Law