221 S.E.2d 773 (S.C. 1976), 20155, Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville
|Citation:||221 S.E.2d 773, 266 S.C. 81|
|Opinion Judge:||LITTLEJOHN, Justice:|
|Party Name:||TOWNES ASSOCIATES, LTD., Respondent, v. The CITY OF GREENVILLE, South Carolina, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Robert 0. Conoley, Esq., of Greenville, for Appellant, cites: As to the Court's having erred in holding that the preponderance of the evidence established under an implied contract that Plaintiff was entitled to recover from the City any monetary relief whatsoever: 237 S.C. 548, 118 S.E.2d 324; 2...|
|Case Date:||January 22, 1976|
|Court:||Supreme Court of South Carolina|
[266 S.C. 83] Robert O. Conoley, Greenville, for appellant.
Charles W. Marchbanks, Greenville, for respondent.
[266 S.C. 84] LITTLEJOHN, Justice:
Townes Associates, Ltd. (plaintiff) brought two separate actions against the City of Greenville (City), alleging that fees were owed it for architectural services on two separate construction projects. From rulings of the lower court in favor of the
plaintiff in each action, the City has appealed.
Plaintiff alleged in the first action that fees were owed it for architectural work on a pedestrian mall on Coffee Street, pursuant to a written contract with the City which provided for an architect fee totaling 5.45% Of the lowest construction bid. In its answer, the City admitted the written contract, but denied that the same had been breached by the City.
In the second action, plaintiff alleged that it had performed services for the City under an implied contract in connection with a parking garage on Spring Street and was entitled to recover the value of its services. The City denied that there was an implied contract for the plaintiff to provide services in connection with this Spring Street garage project.
The actions were consolidated for trial and referred to the master. Both are actions at law.
The master made findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that the City had wrongfully breached its written[266 S.C. 85] contract with plaintiff on the Coffee Street Mall project, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the fee provided in the contract, as if no termination had taken place. With regard to the Spring Street project, the master found that the City, through its City Manager, had employed plaintiff to perform services, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable value of its services under a Quantum meruit theory.
The circuit judge concurred in the findings of the master, except to modify the master's conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to recover the total fee provided in the written contract, as if no termination had taken place. On this point, the circuit judge concluded that plaintiff was only entitled to 80% Of the fee provided in the written...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP