Black v. Freeman, 21142
| Decision Date | 06 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21142,21142 |
| Citation | 262 S.E.2d 879,274 S.C. 272 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Morris BLACK, Respondent, v. James A. FREEMAN, Appellant. |
Acker, Acker, Floyd & Welmaker, Pickens, for appellant.
Finley, Ponder & Warlick, Pickens, for respondent.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. Clm Equip.
...the language of a contract is clear and unambiguous, its construction is a matter of law for the Court, not a jury. Black v. Freeman, 274 S.C. 272, 262 S.E.2d 879 (1980); Corporate Properties, Ltd. v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 1989 CarswellOnt. 623 "Where an agreement is clear and capabl......
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. GS Thadius LLC
..."[w]here the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous as a matter of law, its construction is for the court." Black v. Freeman , 274 S.C. 272, 273, 262 S.E.2d 879, 880 (1980).Application of Applicable Law to the Policies: Under South Carolina law, an insurer is responsible for providin......
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Riley
...the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous as a matter of law, its construction is for the court." Black v. Freeman , 274 S.C. 272, 273, 262 S.E.2d 879, 880 (1980).I. The Policy's Business Activity Exclusion Precludes Coverage for the Claims Asserted in the Underlying Lawsuit.A. The ......
-
Pearson v. Church of God
...rights under his Pension Plan. I would find the contract provisions clear and unambiguous as a matter of law. Black v. Freeman, 274 S.C. 272, 262 S.E.2d 879 (1980) (where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous as a matter of law, construction is for the court rather than the jury......