2. To what extent might the court in Gillispie have been motivated by the notion that a detailed account of the facts might well show that plaintiff did not have a valid claim for relief? Is it significant that at the time of the Gillispie decision North Carolina did not have a provision for summary judgment that allows a party to challenge an opponent’s pleadings which have no basis in fact? Has the North Carolina court simply followed a hard and fast line concerning the “fact” pleading requirement, thereby undermining its basic purpose as a device for pretrial communication?