Defendants’ contention was that they were entitled to reformation of a contract because a page was inadvertently left out of the asset purchase agreement. The missing page detailed long term liabilities which Defendants claimed the Plaintiff was obligated to pay. Defendants argued that the failure to pay constituted a violation of the accompanying Promissory Note and Security Agreement, and relieved them from their obligations under their non-compete agreements.
The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the Plaintiff asserted that even if reformation was allowed, the only remedy for Defendants was for Plaintiffs to pay the liabilities listed on the missing page. Judge Diaz held:
The Court disagrees. While there is a strong presumption in favor of correctness of an instrument as written, Hice, 301 N.C. at 651, 273 S.E.2d at 270, a “court’s principle [sic] objective is to determine the intent of the parties to the agreement.” Holshouser v. Shaner Hotel Group Props. One Ltd. P’ship, 134 N.C. App. 391, 397, 518 S.E.2d 17, 23 (1999).’
Moreover, when a court reforms an instrument, the general rule is that ‘”[t]he rights of the parties are measured by the instrument as originally intended, and the effect of the reformation, as a whole, is to give all the parties all the rights to which they are equitably entitled under the instrument that they intended to execute.” 66 Am. Jur. 2d Reformation of Instruments § 9 (2007) (citing Gurske v. Strate, 87 N.W.2d 703 (Neb. 1958)).
Thus, if Defendants establish by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that, because of a mutual mistake, the APA does not reflect the true intention of the parties at the original date of execution with respect to the long-term liabilities to be assumed by Plaintiff, they would be entitled to (1) have the agreement judicially reformed to correct the mistake, and (2) seek full relief for Plaintiff’s alleged breach of the APA and related contract documents. Long, 178 N.C. at 506, 101 S.E. at 13 (stating that when reformation is granted, the court not only corrects the contract as written, but enforces it in its amended form).
The Court dismissed an unfair and deceptive practices claim by one of the Defendants, who asserted that the Plaintiff had diverted funds rendering the Plaintiff unable to meet its contractual obligations to him. The Court held that "A-1’s alleged accounting misdeeds arguably relate to matters of internal corporate governance, which are insufficient to sustain a UDTPA claim." The Court further held that the claim was nothing more than one for breach of contract, stating "it does not matter that the purported breach resulted from A-1’s alleged accounting irregularities, as that fact alone is insufficient to elevate a contract dispute into an UDTPA claim."