N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 75
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4 (2026)

Contracts to be in writing

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 75 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No contract or agreement hereafter made, limiting the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina shall be enforceable unless such agreement is in writing duly signed by the party who agrees not to enter into any such business within such territory: Provided, nothing herein shall be construed to  legalize any contract or agreement not to enter into business in the State of North Carolina, or at any point in the State of North Carolina, which contract is now illegal, or which contract is made illegal by any other section of this Chapter. (1913, c. 41, s. 4; C.S., s. 2562.)

 

§§ 75-5 through 75-7:  Repealed by Session Laws 1995 (Regular Session, 1996), c.  550, s. 2.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1947–2025 · leading case: Dealers Supply Co., Inc. v. Cheil Indus., Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 579 (M.D.N.C. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dealers Supply Co., Inc. v. Cheil Indus., Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 579 (M.D.N.C. 2004). · cites it 5× “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-4. The statute of frauds for restraints on trade provides that “[n]o contract or agreement hereafter made, limiting the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina shall be enforceable unless such agreement is in writing…”
Custom Molders, Inc. v. Roper Corp., 401 S.E.2d 96 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 12× “Moreover, the purchase orders are the only paper writings in this record which can satisfy a written contract for purposes of N.C.G.S. § 75-4 requiring that all contracts which limit "the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina" be in writing.”
Brooks Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Pugh, 373 S.E.2d 300 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “*306 In any event, assuming the statute of frauds question was before the trial court and needs to be resolved here, I do not believe that § 75-4 of our General Statutes requires that the consideration given in return for a covenant not to compete must be in writing.”
Vanwyk Textile Sys., B v. v. Zimmer Mach. Am., Inc., 994 F. Supp. 350 (W.D.N.C. 1997). · cites it 2× “Vanwyk argues that applying N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-4, a statute of frauds, rendering • unwritten non-compete agreements in North Carolina unenforceable, requires allowing the application of N.”
Norlin Indus., Inc. v. Music Arts, Inc., 313 S.E.2d 166 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 5× “1-52(5), and (2) the alleged oral “franchise agreement” was void and unenforceable pursuant to G.S. 75-4, a statute of frauds provision.”
Radio Elec. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 92 S.E.2d 664 (N.C. 1956). · cites it 7× “G.S. 75-4, in pertinent part, provides: “No contract or agreement hereafter made, limiting the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina shall be enforceable unless such agreement is in writing duly signed by the party who agrees not to enter…”
Friday v. United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc., 575 S.E.2d 532 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “The character of the $45 court cost is clear and defendant was not in violation of G.S. § 75-4(4) with respect to this item.”
Eli Rsch., Inc. v. United Commc'ns Grp., LLC, 312 F. Supp. 2d 748 (M.D.N.C. 2004). “§ 75-4. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to allege the existence of signed writings for the Eli-Editor contracts, and as such cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Robins & Weill, Inc. v. Mason, 320 S.E.2d 693 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). “2d at 760-61 ; see, G.S. 75-4. On appeal, the defendants have contested the reasonableness of the covenants.”
New Hanover Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Martinez, 525 S.E.2d 487 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4 (1999). We have held: “G.”
Keith v. Day, 343 S.E.2d 562 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986). “G.S. 75-4. We recognize the distinction between covenants not to compete in connection with the sale of a business and covenants not to compete in connection with a contract of employment.”
Jewel Box Stores Corp. v. Morrow, 158 S.E.2d 840 (N.C. 1968). “his question: Is defendant’s covenant, made at the time he sold his retail jewelry business to plaintiffs, not to engage in that business in the Town of Morganton and within a radius of 10 miles of its city limits for a period of 10 years from the date of sale, a valid and…”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4(4) — 1 case
Friday v. United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc., 575 S.E.2d 532 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). “The character of the $45 court cost is clear and defendant was not in violation of G.S. § 75-4(4) with respect to this item.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.