Opinion ID: 1008962
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 4 Both GAME WORLD, INC. and [Olhausen]

Text: acknowledge that their manner of doing business in the past has been for [Olhausen] to treat GAME WORLD, INC. as its exclusive dealership in the state of North Carolina, and that so long as GAME WORLD, INC. meets its obligations under Paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 above and abides by all terms of this AGREEMENT, that manner of doing business shall continue. Id. at 62-63. The parties eventually renegotiated their settlement terms in a letter agreement designed to resume normal business relations between the two companies. Id. at 106. The agreement required that Olhausen cancel the Settlement Agreement. Id. In early 2000, while preparing to open a new store in North Carolina, Game World contacted Olhausen to ensure that the new store would be supplied with Olhausen products. When Olhausen represented that it would supply its products, Game World made considerable expenditures in reliance on this promise. Olhausen reneged on this promise, and it sought other North Carolina retailers to sell its products. 4 GAME WORLD v. OLHAUSEN BILLIARD MANUFACTURING Game World then sued Olhausen in North Carolina Superior Court. After the action was removed to the Eastern District of North Carolina, Game World filed an amended complaint alleging breach of the exclusive distributorship agreement and unfair trade practices, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2001). Olhausen moved to dismiss Game World’s complaint, relying on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4, which states in relevant part: No contract or agreement hereafter made, limiting the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina shall be enforceable unless such agreement is in writing duly signed by the party who agrees not to enter into any such business within such territory.2 The district court agreed with this argument and granted the motion to dismiss.