Court Opinion

ID: 9850140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:52:41.081526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:32.259885
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, Judge,
dissenting.
In its sole argument on appeal, Plaintiff contends that the trial court erroneously denied its motion for summary judgment. I disagree.
“It is the simple law of contracts that as a man consents to bind himself, so shall he be bound.” Troitino v. Goodman, 225 N.C. 406, 414, 35 S.E.2d 277, 283 (1945) (quotations and citations omitted). “Whenever a court is called upon to interpret a contract its primary purpose is to ascertain the intention of the parties at the moment of its execution.” Lane v. Scarborough, 284 N.C. 407, 409-10, 200 S.E.2d 622, 624 (1973) (citations omitted). “If the plain language of a contract is clear, the intention of the parties is inferred from the words of the contract.” Walton v. City of Raleigh, 342 N.C. 879, 881, 467 S.E.2d 410, 411 (1996) (citing Lane, 284 N.C. at 410, 200 S.E.2d at 624-25). “When the language of a contract is clear and unambiguous, effect must be given to its terms, and the court, under the guise of constructions, cannot reject what the parties inserted or insert what the parties elected to omit.” Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 257 N.C. 717, 719, 127 S.E.2d 539, 541 (1962) (emphasis added) (citing Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Hood, 226 N.C. 706, 710, 40 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1946)).
The language of the contract in the case at bar is plain, unambiguous, and clear. One year following closing, CB&H Pension *725Services, Inc. was required “to remove ‘CB&H’ from its name.” The contract does not require CB&H Pension Services, Inc. to change its name such that it cannot “easily be confused with a CB&H entity[,]” nor does it require CB&H Pension Services, Inc. “to remove ‘CB&H’ or ‘CBH’ from [its] name[,]” (emphasis added) as Plaintiff contends. The majority takes Plaintiff’s contentions one step further, however, concluding that Defendants must “remove any reference to ‘CBH’ or any variation thereof from their corporate names or aliases.” (Emphasis added). This is illogical. Surely the contract does not prevent Defendants’ use of “BHC” — a “variation” of “CBH” — in a corporate name. Plaintiff and the majority would have this Court insert words into an otherwise plain and unambiguous agreement. It would have been a simple matter for the parties themselves to insert such words into their agreement. This, the parties did not do. This Court should not do it for them. I vote to affirm the trial court.