disagree with our determination that the language of the relevant documents establishes that the parties entered into a single contract, rather than multiple contracts, she concludes that the trial court’s summary judgment order and judgment should be reversed and that this case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the grounds that the record reveals the existence of a genuine issue of material fact concerning the extent, if any, to which the parties intended that the Infrastructure Agreement and the Addendum should be treated as sealed instruments. In concluding that such a factual issue exists, our dissenting colleague relies upon decisions such as Security National Bank v. Educators Mut. Life Ins. Co., 265 N.C. 86, 96, 143 S.E.2d 270, 277 (1965) (<HOLDING>); Pickens v. Rymer, 90 N.C. 282, 283-84 (1884),
holding that the question of whether police had a reasonable basis for finding that a third party had authority to consent to search is a question of law holding that the record revealed the existence of a factual issue concerning whether the instrument in question had been executed under seal given that the particular contract in question bore three signatures only one of which was affixed adjacent to the word seal holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question