reasoning that the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries resulting from purchasing a damaged vehicle because she "purchased th[e] car based on the assurances of defendant . . . and would not have purchased the car had she known it was a reconstructed vehicle"
Summary of this case from Hongda Chem. U.S., LLC v. Shangyu Sunfit Chem. Co.1997
reasoning that the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries resulting from purchasing a damaged vehicle because she "purchased th[e] car based on the assurances of defendant . . . and would not have purchased the car had she known it was a reconstructed vehicle"
Summary of this case from Hongda Chem. U.S., LLC v. Shangyu Sunfit Chem. Co.Full title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date published: Jan 1, 1997
As there are no allegations as to how plaintiffs' reliance on the particular representations regarding the…
Wilkins v. SafranWe agree. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 84-13 (2005) provides, “[i]f any attorney commits any fraudulent…