Piedmont Engineers, Architects & Planners, Inc. v. First Hartford Realty Corp.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Piedmont Engineers, Architects & Planners, Inc. v. First Hartford Realty Corp.

293 S.E.2d 706, 278 S.C. 195, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 392

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 8, 1982

Docket21755

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 293 S.E.2d 706 (Piedmont Engineers, Architects & Planners, Inc. v. First Hartford Realty Corp.) 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

Piedmont Engineers, Architects & Planners, Inc. v. First Hartford Realty Corp., 293 S.E.2d 706, 278 S.C. 195, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 392 (S.C. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this contract action, respondent sought to collect payment for services performed. The lower court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and appellant has brought this appeal.

*196 In support of its motion, respondent presented a letter from appellant’s supervisor of accounts payable which was in response to an invoice from respondent. The letter stated, “I should have told you that $20,289.09 was the correct amount that we feel is due.” Appellant asserts that the closing of a construction loan was a condition precedent to payment and that no loan has been closed. The lower court granted respondent’s summary judgment motion on the ground that assuming the debt existed, any conditions had been waived by appellant’s letter.

In considering whether the lower court was correct in granting the motion, this Court must construe all ambiguities, conclusions and inferences arising from the evidence most strongly against respondent who was the moving party. Finger v. Finger, 270 S. C. 244, 241 S. E. (2d) 746 (1978). Summary judgment should be granted only when it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved. Vaughn v. A. E. Green Co., Inc.,_S. C__, 287 S. E. (2d) 493 (1982). Summary judgment should not be granted even when there is no dispute as to the evidentiary facts if there is dispute as to the conclusions to be drawn from those facts. Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S. C. 334, 271 S. E. (2d) 311 (1980).

Construing the evidence most strongly against respondent, the sentence quoted from appellant’s letter could mean that appellant felt $20,289.09 was the correct amount due to respondent when and if payment became due. The sentence is not an explicit waiver. Determining whether the sentence is an implicit waiver raises a question as to the conclusions to be drawn from the facts. Respondent’s summay judgment motion should have been denied. Murphy.

The lower court judgment is reversed and the action remanded for trial.

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

Per Curiam:

In this contract action, respondent sought to collect payment for services performed. The lower court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment, and appellant has brought this appeal.

*196 In support of its motion, respondent presented a letter from appellant’s supervisor of accounts payable which was in response to an invoice from respondent. The letter stated, “I should have told you that $20,289.09 was the correct amount that we feel is due.” Appellant asserts that the closing of a construction loan was a condition precedent to payment and that no loan has been closed. The lower court granted respondent’s summary judgment motion on the ground that assuming the debt existed, any conditions had been waived by appellant’s letter.

In considering whether the lower court was correct in granting the motion, this Court must construe all ambiguities, conclusions and inferences arising from the evidence most strongly against respondent who was the moving party. Finger v. Finger, 270 S. C. 244, 241 S. E. (2d) 746 (1978). Summary judgment should be granted only when it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved. Vaughn v. A. E. Green Co., Inc.,_S. C__, 287 S. E. (2d) 493 (1982). Summary judgment should not be granted even when there is no dispute as to the evidentiary facts if there is dispute as to the conclusions to be drawn from those facts. Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S. C. 334, 271 S. E. (2d) 311 (1980).

Construing the evidence most strongly against respondent, the sentence quoted from appellant’s letter could mean that appellant felt $20,289.09 was the correct amount due to respondent when and if payment became due. The sentence is not an explicit waiver. Determining whether the sentence is an implicit waiver raises a question as to the conclusions to be drawn from the facts. Respondent’s summay judgment motion should have been denied. Murphy.

The lower court judgment is reversed and the action remanded for trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 S.E.2d 706, 278 S.C. 195, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piedmont-engineers-architects-planners-inc-v-first-hartford-realty-sc-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack