“when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff’s claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiff’s claim.” Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161, 166, 558 S.E.2d 490, 494 (2002). On appeal of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this Court “conducts a de novo review of the pleadings to determine their legal sufficiency and to determine whether the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss was correct.” Page v. Lexington Ins. Co., 177, N.C. App. 246, 248, 628 S.E.2d 427, 428 (2006) (citation omitted); see also McLamb v. T.P. Inc., 173 N.C. App. 586, 588, 619 S.E.2d 577, 580 (2005) (<HOLDING>). North Carolina General Statutes, Section
holding that the plaintiff failed to allege breach of a valid and enforceable contract but stated a claim for promissory estoppel holding that a breach of contract claim was properly dismissed where plaintiff did not identify the contracts allegedly breached holding trial court properly dismissed pursuant to 12b6 plaintiffs claim where plaintiff did not allege existence of a valid option contract recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim