Chambers of South Carolina, Inc. v. Entrepreneur, Inc.

Decision Date23 February 1987
Docket NumberNo. 0917,0917
Citation292 S.C. 97,354 S.E.2d 921
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesCHAMBERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., Appellant, v. ENTREPRENEUR, INC., Respondent. . Heard

Kellum W. Allen, of Kirkland, Taylor, Wilson, Moore, Allen & Deneen, West Columbia, for appellant.

Ronald E. Boston, of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, Columbia, for respondent.

SANDERS, Chief Judge:

Appellant Chambers of South Carolina, Inc. sued respondent Entrepreneur, Inc. alleging the breach of a contract which provided for Chambers to collect garbage from certain convenience stores operated by Entrepreneur in Horry County. The trial judge directed a verdict for Entrepreneur. Chambers appeals. We reverse and remand.

"In deciding a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Satterfield v. Bright, 289 S.C. 254, 256, 345 S.E.2d 769, 770 (Ct.App.1986).

Viewed in the light most favorable to Chambers, the evidence in this case may be fairly summarized as follows.

Chambers is in the business of collecting and disposing of garbage. In the fall of 1984, the company was attempting to build up its business in Horry County. To that end, Steven M. Williams was hired as a sales representative to solicit business for the company.

During the course of his solicitations, Mr. Williams called on a number of convenience stores operated by Entrepreneur throughout Horry County under the name of "Scotchman." Mr. Williams had no previous dealings with Scotchman stores or Entrepreneur. After inquiry at several of the stores, he learned that their central office was located at the rear of a Scotchman store in Socastee and that Steve Church was the district manager. Mr. Williams then met with Mr. Church at the Socastee store and they began negotiations for Chambers to provide garbage services for the stores.

On September 15, 1984, a document was signed which purported to be a contract by the terms of which the parties agreed that Chambers would provide garbage services over the course of the next three years at a Scotchman store operated by Entrepreneur in Aynor. Two months later, Mr. Church expressed satisfaction with the services being provided by Chambers at the Aynor store and a desire to enter into contracts for garbage services at other Scotchman stores.

On November 12, 1984, additional documents were signed purporting to be contracts for Chambers to provide similar services during the next three years at ten other Scotchman stores operated by Entrepreneur.

The price specified by the contracts for providing the services to each of the eleven stores averaged $119 monthly.

Mr. Church told Mr. Williams that he had the authority to enter into the purported contracts for Entrepreneur and that he had authorized his secretary, Kaye Campbell, to sign them in his absence. All of the purported contracts were signed for Entrepreneur by Ms. Campbell, in the absence of Mr. Church. She had previously provided Mr. Williams with information as to the volume of business done at each store and participated in discussions between Mr Church and Mr. Williams as to the price of the proposed garbage services, the size of the containers needed and the frequency of the garbage pickup.

William Girard, a vice-president for Entrepreneur, testified that neither Mr. Church nor Ms. Campbell had the authority to enter into these contracts and that no employee or officer of Chambers checked with the home office of Entrepreneur to determine whether they had this authority.

It is undisputed that Chambers collected garbage from containers which it supplied at the Aynor store from September 1984 until March 1985 and collected garbage from the containers which it supplied at the other ten stores from December 1984 through March 1985....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Vereen v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 1728
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • February 20, 1991
    ...and customs to believe the agent possesses certain authority and to deal with the agent. Chambers of South Carolina, Inc. v. Entrepreneur, Inc., 292 S.C. 97, 100, 354 S.E.2d 921, 923 (Ct.App.1987). In this case, Canteen could not have believed Liberty authorized Martin to collude with him i......
  • Orphan Aid Soc. v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 13, 1987
    ...has certain authority and they in turn deal with the agent based on that assumption." Chambers of South Carolina, Inc. v. Entrepreneur, Inc., 292 S.C. 97, 100, 354 S.E.2d 921, 923 (Ct.App.1987). Thus, the concept of apparent authority depends upon manifestations by the principal to a third ......
  • Pee Dee Nursing Home, Inc. v. Florence General Hosp.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 1992
    ...has certain authority and they in turn deal with the agent based on that assumption." Chambers of South Carolina, Inc. v. Entrepreneur, Inc., 292 S.C. 97, 100, 354 S.E.2d 921, 923 (Ct.App.1987). Thus, the concept of apparent authority depends upon manifestations by the principal to a third ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT