Charleston Cabinets, Inc. v. Smith

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedJanuary 14, 2008
Docket2008-UP-050
StatusUnpublished

This text of Charleston Cabinets, Inc. v. Smith (Charleston Cabinets, Inc. v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charleston Cabinets, Inc. v. Smith, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


Charleston Cabinets, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Greg Smith, Respondent.


Appeal From Charleston County
 Daniel  F.  Pieper, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-050
Submitted January 2, 2008 – Filed January 14, 2008


AFFIRMED


Steven L. Smith, of Charleston, for Appellant

William B. Jung, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Charleston Cabinets brought a breach of contract claim against Greg Smith, and now appeals the trial court’s finding a binding contract did not exist between the parties.  We affirm.[1]

A claim for breach of contract is an action at law.  Moore v. Crowley & Assocs., 254 S.C. 170, 172, 174 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1970).  “In an action at law, tried without a jury, the judge’s findings will not be disturbed unless they are without evidentiary support.”  King v. PYA/Monarch, Inc., 317 S.C. 385, 388-89, 453 S.E.2d 885, 888 (1995).  The underlying contract was between Charleston Cabinets and Gary Ezzo; Greg Smith was not a party to the contract.   The contract’s language is clear and unambiguous.  See Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 248, 449 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1994) (“When the language of a contract is plain and capable of legal construction, that language alone determines the instrument’s force and effect.”.  Because there is some evidence to support the trial judge’s findings, we affirm. Rule 220(b), SCACR.

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and THOMAS, J.J., concur.


[1]  We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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

Related

King v. PYA/Monarch, Inc.
453 S.E.2d 885 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1995)
Moore v. Crowley and Associates, Inc.
174 S.E.2d 340 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1970)
Ellis v. Taylor
449 S.E.2d 487 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charleston Cabinets, Inc. v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charleston-cabinets-inc-v-smith-scctapp-2008.