Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 1086132, member: 622"] [url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1650457.html[/url] Under NC law, the court stated the following: "In the context of the sovereign immunity doctrine, [B]our Supreme Court has used public policy to effectively waive the State's sovereign immunity in causes of action grounded in contract.[/B] Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 320, 222 S.E.2d 412, 423–24 (1976). In making this decision, the Smith Court was moved by the following public policy considerations: (1) To deny the party who has performed his obligation under a contract the right to sue the state when it defaults is to take his property without compensation and thus to deny him due process; (2) To hold that the state may arbitrarily avoid its obligation under a contract after having induced the other party to change his position or to expend time and money in the performance of his obligations, or in preparing to perform them, would be judicial sanction of the highest type of governmental tyranny; (3) To attribute to the General Assembly the intent to retain to the state the right, should expedience seem to make it desirable, to breach its obligation at the expense of its citizens imputes to that body “bad faith and shoddiness” foreign to a democratic government; (4) A citizen's petition to the legislature for relief from the state's breach of contract is an unsatisfactory and frequently a totally inadequate remedy for an injured party; and (5) The courts are a proper forum in which claims against the state may be presented and decided upon known principles." I am NOT a North Carolina attorney. Reading the above leads me to believe that under NC law, the courts will uphold contracts unless there is some other reason not to do so. I presume other states have similar rulings and reasoning, if we have any Maryland attorneys, their comments would be very much appreciated. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?