Thomas H. Segars

Sep 10, 2024 | lexology.com | Thomas H. Segars

Last Spring, the North Carolina Court of Appeals had a rare occasion to consider an unfair and deceptive trade practice claim asserted in the context of private-school education. Turpin v. Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc. is sui generis—a must-read for anyone interested in either education law or section 75-1.1 claims.

Aug 6, 2024 | lexology.com | Scottie Lee |Steven A. Scoggan |Thomas H. Segars |James Weiss

Most of the cases we write about are contested; two (or more) parties with conflicting views on the propriety of a section 75-1.1 claim present their arguments and let a Court decide who’s right. But what happens when the defending party doesn’t even show up? Does the plaintiff automatically prevail on a section 75-1.1 claim? The answer is “no.” And a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Citadel Brands v. Teespring, illustrates this point.

Jul 23, 2024 | lexology.com | Thomas H. Segars

Most of our readers are well aware of the four-year statute of limitations that applies to section 75-1.1 claims. But what happens if the parties agree that a shorter limitations period should govern their potential claims against one another? Can they change this period by contract? In today’s post, we examine Warren v. Cielo Ventures, a case that addresses just this situation. As discussed below, the Warren court held that such an agreement is unenforceable as against public policy.

Jul 2, 2024 | lexology.com | Thomas H. Segars

Nothing good ever happens when someone tells you that they don’t “give a damn what the judge says . . . I can do whatever I want.” A recent Court of Appeals decision, Myers v. Broome-Edwards, illustrates this point. The Facts: A Tenant Is Kicked To the CurbMyers involved a dispute between a residential tenant, Henry Myers, and his landlord. After filing several unsuccessful summary-ejectment proceedings, the landlord decided to take matters into her own hands.

Sep 6, 2023 | lexology.com | Thomas H. Segars

Have you purchased tickets for a Tennessee Williams play—assuming that you were going to enjoy a distinctly “Tennessee” theater experience—only to learn that Tennessee Williams was born in Mississippi? Were you crestfallen to find out that your Canadian bacon didn’t come from Canada at all? If so, you may have a claim for money damages—at least in the Central District of California. A California consumer named Phillip White recently paid three dollars for a bottle of Texas Pete hot sauce.