37 N.C. App. 56 | N.C. Ct. App. | 1978
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury relative to two substantive features of the case. Specifically, he argues that justification for prevention of performance of a contract and repudiation as breach of contract were material aspects of the case arising on the evidence which should have been brought to the jury’s attention. We must agree.
Moreover, we also agree with plaintiff’s contention that evidence of defendant’s bringing the tractor trailer back to Raleigh, apparently abandoning it there, and failing to notify plaintiff of his intentions regarding further performance of the contract was sufficient to require submission to the jury of an instruction explaining repudiation as a breach of contract.
Accordingly, the trial court’s failure to charge on substantial features of the case constitutes error for which plaintiff is entitled to a new trial.
Although plaintiff’s remaining assignments of error may have merit, we refrain from any discussion thereof as they may not arise again on a new trial.
New trial.