Goodwin v. Hilton Head Co., 21072
| Decision Date | 25 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 21072,21072 |
| Citation | 259 S.E.2d 611,273 S.C. 758 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Grady Gaines GOODWIN, Respondent, v. The HILTON HEAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
William M. Bowen and Drew A. Laughlin, of Bowen, Cooper, Beard & Smoot, Hilton Head Island, for appellant.
W. Rhett Eleazer, Columbia, for respondent.
This action was instituted for the specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real estate and to recover damages occasioned by the failure to convey the property as agreed. The basic issue concerned the existence of a binding contract for the sale of the property. This issue, together with the question of damages, was submitted to a jury for determination, resulting in the return of a special verdict finding that (1) a contract of sale was entered into between the parties, (2) the defendant (appellant) had breached the contract, and (3) plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $24,000.00. Thereafter, the lower court, agreeably to respondent, reduced the damage award to $20,000.00 and entered an order directing specific performance of the contract of sale and judgment for damages in the reduced amount. This appeal is from that judgment.
While others are argued, resolution of the questions concerning (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding that a valid contract existed, and (2) the allowance of damages are dispositive of all issues raised in the appeal.
Appellant argues that there was no written memorandum of the alleged contract of sale as required by the Statute of Frauds, Section 32-3-10 of the 1976 Code of Laws and, therefore, respondent's action must fail for that reason. Respondent sought to establish the written contract from several documents in evidence. The lower court properly held that the written documents in evidence, considered as a whole, satisfied the requirements of the Statute of Frauds.
The governing principles were thus stated in Speed v. Speed, 213 S.C. 401, 49 S.E.2d 588, 591:
It is well settled that the form of writing required by the statute is not material. The contract may be evidenced by one writing or more. It may be shown entirely by written correspondence. Whatever form the agreement may assume, if the writing or writings, viewed as a whole, constitute, in essence or substance upon their face, a note or memorandum in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged, showing who the contracting parties are, the subject matter of the sale, and the consideration, the statute is satisfied.
The record shows that, on June 15, 1976, the parties entered into negotiations for the purchase by respondent of Lot No. 20 on Port Royal Plantation, in Beaufort County, South Carolina; and a deposit of $1000 was made on the purchase price. In the negotiations, the use to be made of an adjacent lot of 31/2 acres became material and, on July 25, 1976, respondent made a written offer for the purchase of both, Lot No. 20 and the adjacent 31/2 acre parcel, with a check attached for an additional deposit of.$1000.00. The offer was directed to appellant, stated a consideration of $90,000.00, the terms of payment, and a description of the property involved. There is testimony that thereafter, respondent was informed of the acceptance of his offer of July 25 and that his check for.$1000.00, which accompanied his offer, was deposited by appellant on July 27. Appellant then had the property surveyed on August 2, 1976, and mailed a copy of the survey to respondent.
While the testimony on the material issues is in conflict, the foregoing amply sustains the finding of the lower court that the written documents in evidence satisfied the requirements of the Statute of Frauds.
The remaining issues concern the question of damages. Appellant contends that the trial judge was in error (1) in refusing to instruct the jury that a duty rested upon respondent to mitigate his damages and (2) in submitting the issue of consequential damages to the jury.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNaughton v. Charleston Charter Sch. for Math & Sci., Inc.
...” Stern & Stern Assocs. v. Timmons, 310 S.C. 250, 252, 423 S.E.2d 124, 126 (1992) (emphasis added) (quoting Goodwin v. Hilton Head Co., 273 S.C. 758, 761, 259 S.E.2d 611, 613 (1979) ). Although “the defendant need not foresee the exactly dollar amount of the injury, the defendant must know ......
-
Fici v. Koon
...of property fitting that description. Kennedy v. Gramling, 33 S.C. 367, 11 S.E. 1081 (1890). 5. We note that Goodwin v. Hilton Head Co., 273 S.C. 758, 259 S.E.2d 611 (1979), is unclear on this issue. There the buyer sent an offer, including a description of the property, with a check. The s......
-
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Columbia Harbison LLC
...to have been within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made." Id. at 126 (quoting Goodwin v. Hilton Head Co., 259 S.E.2d 611, 613 (S.C. 1979)) (internal quotation marks omitted). For special damages to be "within the contemplation of the parties at the time the co......
-
South Carolina Federal Sav. Bank v. Thornton-Crosby Development Co., Inc.
...the parties at the time the contract was made. Charles v. Texas Company, 199 S.C. 156, 18 S.E.2d 719 (1942); Goodwin v. Hilton Head Company, 273 S.C. 758, 259 S.E.2d 611 (1979); The Drews Company, Inc. v. Ledwith-Wolfe Associates, Inc., 296 S.C. 207, 371 S.E.2d 532 (1988). If the fact of da......