On 7 November 1996, plaintiffs informed defendant that they were exercising their option to cancel the Contract because the covenants and restrictions were unsatisfactory and because of problems with the drainage on the property. Defendant did not believe plaintiffs were canceling the Contract because the covenants and restrictions were unsatisfactory. Plaintiffs filed this action to recover their earnest money deposit. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on 26January 1998. On 10 February 1998 summary judgment was granted for plaintiffs by the trial court.
Defendant now appeals the order.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for plaintiffs. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order of summary judgment for plaintiffs. First, defendant argues that plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiffs violated their implied duty to act in good faith when reviewing the Contract's covenants and restrictions. Plaintiffs counter that, while they acted in good faith in canceling the Contract with defendant, North Carolina law does not imply a duty of good faith when to do so would rewrite the express agreement between the parties. 127 N.C. App.