Rite-Aid of South Carolina, Inc. v. Cantrell

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Rite-Aid of South Carolina, Inc. v. Cantrell

336 S.E.2d 726, 287 S.C. 119, 1985 S.C. App. LEXIS 490

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 5, 1985

Docket0573

StatusPublished

This text of 336 S.E.2d 726 (Rite-Aid of South Carolina, Inc. v. Cantrell) 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

Rite-Aid of South Carolina, Inc. v. Cantrell, 336 S.E.2d 726, 287 S.C. 119, 1985 S.C. App. LEXIS 490 (S.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, Judge:

Rite-Aid brought this action against Cantrell to enforce a noncompetition agreement entered into as an incident of the sale by Cantrell of a pharmacy business to Rite-Aid. The noncompetition agreement provided that Cantrell would not enter into a retail pharmacy or health and beauty aids business within three miles of the location of the business sold to Rite-Aid. The trial judge, trying the case without a [120]*120jury, construed the language “within three miles” as being the distance measured by the most direct road route from the former location. We affirm.

Cantrell opened a pharmacy business 3.2 miles from the former location along Highway 9 but approximately 120 feet less than 3 miles as the crow flies between the two stores.

At issue on appeal is whether the trial judge erred in holding that the new store was not within three miles of the old store.

The issue presented is a novel one in South Carolina. Authorities¹ of other jurisdictions are divided; however, because of the insignificant difference between the road mileage and the mileage as the crow flies, we affirm the appealed order which resolved this case by the principle of law that ambiguities or conflicts in a written contract must be resolved against the party who prepared the contract. Duke Power Company v. South Carolina Public Service Comm., 284 S. C. 81, 326 S. E. (2d) 395 (1985). In this case the contract was drawn by Rite-Aid’s attorney and could have easily spelled out the method of measuring the three miles; the contract failed to do so; we therefore find no error.

Rite-Aid also contends the trial judge erred in finding no violation of the covenant not to solicit former customers. This is a factual issue on the law side of the court; there is sufficient evidence of record to support the finding of fact made by the trial judge; the contention is, therefore, rejected.

The issue of damages is moot because of our affirmance of the appealed order’s ruling that there was no breach of the covenant not to compete.

For the reasons stated, the judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Sanders, C. J., and Goolsby, J., concur.

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

Gardner, Judge:

Rite-Aid brought this action against Cantrell to enforce a noncompetition agreement entered into as an incident of the sale by Cantrell of a pharmacy business to Rite-Aid. The noncompetition agreement provided that Cantrell would not enter into a retail pharmacy or health and beauty aids business within three miles of the location of the business sold to Rite-Aid. The trial judge, trying the case without a [120]*120jury, construed the language “within three miles” as being the distance measured by the most direct road route from the former location. We affirm.

Cantrell opened a pharmacy business 3.2 miles from the former location along Highway 9 but approximately 120 feet less than 3 miles as the crow flies between the two stores.

At issue on appeal is whether the trial judge erred in holding that the new store was not within three miles of the old store.

The issue presented is a novel one in South Carolina. Authorities¹ of other jurisdictions are divided; however, because of the insignificant difference between the road mileage and the mileage as the crow flies, we affirm the appealed order which resolved this case by the principle of law that ambiguities or conflicts in a written contract must be resolved against the party who prepared the contract. Duke Power Company v. South Carolina Public Service Comm., 284 S. C. 81, 326 S. E. (2d) 395 (1985). In this case the contract was drawn by Rite-Aid’s attorney and could have easily spelled out the method of measuring the three miles; the contract failed to do so; we therefore find no error.

Rite-Aid also contends the trial judge erred in finding no violation of the covenant not to solicit former customers. This is a factual issue on the law side of the court; there is sufficient evidence of record to support the finding of fact made by the trial judge; the contention is, therefore, rejected.

The issue of damages is moot because of our affirmance of the appealed order’s ruling that there was no breach of the covenant not to compete.

For the reasons stated, the judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Sanders, C. J., and Goolsby, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 S.E.2d 726, 287 S.C. 119, 1985 S.C. App. LEXIS 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rite-aid-of-south-carolina-inc-v-cantrell-scctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack