Black v. Freeman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Black v. Freeman

262 S.E.2d 879, 274 S.C. 272, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 292

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 6, 1980

Docket21142

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 262 S.E.2d 879 (Black v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Black v. Freeman, 262 S.E.2d 879, 274 S.C. 272, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 292 (S.C. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Ness, Justice:

This appeal is from an order granting a directed verdict in favor of respondent Black against appellant Freeman. We reverse.

Freeman employed Black to perform carpentry work on his house at the contract price of “$2.50 per sq. ft. $2.00 unfinished.” There was no specification as to the number of square feet upon which respondent’s total compensation was to be based. Black .demanded payment based upon the entire square footage and Freeman argues respondent was entitled to payment only upon the heated space.

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for a directed verdict. Where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous as a matter of law, its construction is for the court. Proffitt v. Sitton, 244 S. C. 206, 136 S. E. (2d) 257 (1964); Hutson v. Herndon, 243 S. C. 257, 133 S. E. (2d) 753 (1963). Where they are ambiguous, the question of the parties’ intent should be submitted to the jury. Garrett v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 241 S. C. 299, 128 S. E. (2d) 171 (1962). The contract omitted any mention of the disputed term and the evidence was capable of more than one reasonable inference as to the parties’ intent. We hold the trial court erred in directing a verdict for respondent.

Reversed and Remanded.

Lewis, C. J., Littlejohn and Gregory, JJ., and Joseph R. Moss, Acting Associate Justice, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ness, Justice:

This appeal is from an order granting a directed verdict in favor of respondent Black against appellant Freeman. We reverse.

Freeman employed Black to perform carpentry work on his house at the contract price of “$2.50 per sq. ft. $2.00 unfinished.” There was no specification as to the number of square feet upon which respondent’s total compensation was to be based. Black .demanded payment based upon the entire square footage and Freeman argues respondent was entitled to payment only upon the heated space.

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for a directed verdict. Where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous as a matter of law, its construction is for the court. Proffitt v. Sitton, 244 S. C. 206, 136 S. E. (2d) 257 (1964); Hutson v. Herndon, 243 S. C. 257, 133 S. E. (2d) 753 (1963). Where they are ambiguous, the question of the parties’ intent should be submitted to the jury. Garrett v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 241 S. C. 299, 128 S. E. (2d) 171 (1962). The contract omitted any mention of the disputed term and the evidence was capable of more than one reasonable inference as to the parties’ intent. We hold the trial court erred in directing a verdict for respondent.

Reversed and Remanded.

Lewis, C. J., Littlejohn and Gregory, JJ., and Joseph R. Moss, Acting Associate Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 S.E.2d 879, 274 S.C. 272, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-freeman-sc-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack