Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Mezzanotte v. Freeland
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
200 S.E.2d 410 (1973)
An illusory promise is a promise in form only, and the promisor, which is the person who made the promise, doesn't have any real obligation.
If a promisor controls whether to fulfill a promise, the promise is illusory, and won't be valid consideration to support a contract.
After a seller refuses to perform on a sales contract, the buyer made promising arguments in court in Mezzanotte versus Freeland.
Matthew and Genevieve Mezzanotte agreed to buy a tract of land with buildings from James and Maxine Freeland. The contract stated the tract was described in the attachment.
Though nothing was attached, the parties agreed that attachment referred to five deeds. The contract stated the purchase was contingent upon the Mezzanottes, quote, being able to secure a second mortgage from North Carolina National Bank on such terms and conditions that are satisfactory to them, unquote.
Later, the Freelance provided an inventory and list of leases, which was late under the contract. This delayed the Mezzanottes from fulfilling their own contractual obligations.
Though North Carolina National Bank refused to loan the money, the Mezzanottes secured other funding. When the Mezzanottes tried to pay for the land on the closing date, the Freelance refused to proceed.
The Mezzanottes sued the Freelands, asking the court to order the sale and award damages.
After a bench trial, the judge found for the Mezzanottes, reasoning the Mezzanottes substantially complied with the contractual obligations and the freelance breached by refusing to proceed with the sale. The judge ordered the freelance to accept payment, convey the property, and pay one hundred thousand dollars in damages.
The Freelands appealed, arguing that the Mezzanottes' promise to obtain financing was illusory, because the Mezzanottes could control whether they received funding. The North Carolina Court of Appeals heard the appeal.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/mezzanotte-v-freeland
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/mezzanotte-v-freeland
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Mezzanotte v. Freeland
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
200 S.E.2d 410 (1973)
An illusory promise is a promise in form only, and the promisor, which is the person who made the promise, doesn't have any real obligation.
If a promisor controls whether to fulfill a promise, the promise is illusory, and won't be valid consideration to support a contract.
After a seller refuses to perform on a sales contract, the buyer made promising arguments in court in Mezzanotte versus Freeland.
Matthew and Genevieve Mezzanotte agreed to buy a tract of land with buildings from James and Maxine Freeland. The contract stated the tract was described in the attachment.
Though nothing was attached, the parties agreed that attachment referred to five deeds. The contract stated the purchase was contingent upon the Mezzanottes, quote, being able to secure a second mortgage from North Carolina National Bank on such terms and conditions that are satisfactory to them, unquote.
Later, the Freelance provided an inventory and list of leases, which was late under the contract. This delayed the Mezzanottes from fulfilling their own contractual obligations.
Though North Carolina National Bank refused to loan the money, the Mezzanottes secured other funding. When the Mezzanottes tried to pay for the land on the closing date, the Freelance refused to proceed.
The Mezzanottes sued the Freelands, asking the court to order the sale and award damages.
After a bench trial, the judge found for the Mezzanottes, reasoning the Mezzanottes substantially complied with the contractual obligations and the freelance breached by refusing to proceed with the sale. The judge ordered the freelance to accept payment, convey the property, and pay one hundred thousand dollars in damages.
The Freelands appealed, arguing that the Mezzanottes' promise to obtain financing was illusory, because the Mezzanottes could control whether they received funding. The North Carolina Court of Appeals heard the appeal.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/mezzanotte-v-freeland
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/mezzanotte-v-freeland
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
