concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority as to the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss as to plaintiff Williams.
As to plaintiffs Aupperle and Pyle, my impression of the materials before the trial court persuades me that the trial court could have reasonably found that the contract between these plaintiffs and defendant was to be and was in fact substantially performed in North Carolina. I therefore vote to affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion as to these plaintiffs.