McPeters v. Yeargin Const. Co., Inc., No. 0810

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSANDERS; SHAW, J., and LITTLEJOHN
Citation350 S.E.2d 208,290 S.C. 327
PartiesRonald L. McPETERS, Respondent, v. YEARGIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Appellant. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 0810
Decision Date23 September 1986

Page 208

350 S.E.2d 208
290 S.C. 327
Ronald L. McPETERS, Respondent,
v.
YEARGIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Appellant.
No. 0810.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Sept. 23, 1986.
Decided Oct. 20, 1986.

Page 209

[290 S.C. 329] Donald L. Ferguson, of Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, for appellant.

James C. Sarratt, of Sarratt & Clarke, Greenville, for respondent.

SANDERS, Chief Judge:

Respondent Ronald McPeters brought this action against appellant Yeargin Construction Company alleging the breach of a

Page 210

contract to pay him a bonus in connection with a construction project. The jury returned a verdict for Mr. McPeters. We affirm.

Yeargin undertook to construct a paper mill at Monroeville, Alabama for the Parsons-Whittemore Company. Approximately twelve of the more than eleven hundred people employed in connection with this project were salaried employees. One of the salaried employees was Mr. McPeters. He was required to work four ten-hour weekdays for a total of forty hours per week. He testified he was not required to work overtime and was not compensated for any overtime which he did work.

The project proved to be a troublesome one for Yeargin from the outset. Parsons-Whittemore officials changed work orders frequently and made unreasonable demands. They both added to the amount of work necessary to complete the project and shortened the amount of time available for its completion. The profit which Yeargin stood to receive was directly related to the amount of time it took to complete the project.

At a time when morale among the salaried employees of Yeargin reached a low point, Mr. Carl Yost, director of construction for Yeargin, traveled to Alabama and met with them for the purpose of improving their attitude. Mr. McPeters was among those with whom he met.

[290 S.C. 330] One of the salaried employees who was present at the meeting with Mr. Yost testified he said "that if we hung in there, got the job done for the planned profit, that we would be paid a substantial bonus, that we could, roughly six month salary-type bonus." Another of the salaried employees testified Mr. Yost said "if we would just stay with the company, stay on that job and finish it on time, so that Yeargin could collect their fee or make their profit they had figured for that job, that we'd all be able to take a six months vacation." Mr. McPeters testified Mr. Yost said if "we put our--in essence, put our shoulders to the wheel, brought this job in at the anticipated profit, that we could afford to take off for half of a year." Mr. Yost himself testified, "I think I probably said that the maximum bonus anybody could get was six months, equivalent to a half year's salary."

Following this meeting with Mr. Yost, Mr. McPeters continued to work on the project and began to work substantially more than forty hours per week. He testified he did so because of what Mr. Yost had said.

Several Yeargin officials testified the company did not have a specific bonus policy and the payment of any bonuses was strictly discretionary with the company and subject to the final approval of its chairman.

Yeargin eventually received profits greatly in excess of those which it had anticipated on the project, but refused to pay Mr. McPeters a bonus.

I

Yeargin first argues that the trial judge should have granted its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was no evidence of a contract between Yeargin and Mr. McPeters. Specifically, Yeargin argues there was no evidence to establish either the terms of the alleged contract or any consideration on the part of Mr. McPeters. We reject these arguments.

Because this is an appeal from a jury verdict, the evidence and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to Mr....

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Weaver v. John Lucas Tree Expert Co., C.A. No.: 2:13-CV-01698-PMD
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • October 10, 2013
    ...Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., No. 4:07-cv-00369-RBH, 2008 WL 1766723, at *4 (D.S.C. Apr. 15, 2008) (quoting McPeters v. Yeargin Constr. Co., 350 S.E.2d 208, 211 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986)). Notwithstanding these prerequisites, a contract may be created by, or arise from, written or oral communication......
  • Trident Const. Co., Inc. v. Austin Co., No. CIV.A. 2:02-0702-18.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • July 16, 2003
    ...Where a contract does not fix a definite price, there must be a definite method for ascertaining it." McPeters v. Yeargin Const. Co., 290 S.C. 327, 350 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986). The court in Southern Fire & Cas. Co. v. Teal, 287 F.Supp. 617, 621-622 (D.S.C.1968), If the contract is s......
  • Turner v. Med. Univ. of S.C., Appellate Case No. 2016-001986
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 6, 2020
    ...it has been admitted without objection is addressed to the sound discretion of the [circuit court]." McPeters v. Yeargin Constr. Co., 290 S.C. 327, 332, 350 S.E.2d 208, 211 (Ct. App. 1986). At trial, Dr. Zile testified that when he began treating Mikell, Mikell had a fifty percent or g......
  • Toth v. Square D Co., Civ. A. No. 3:87-1998-16 to 3:87-2000-16
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • May 25, 1989
    ...Co., 444 F.Supp. 1098, 1106 (D.S.C.1978); Baylor v. Bath, 189 S.C. 269, 270, 1 S.E.2d 139, 140 (1939); McPeters v. Yeargin Constr. Co., 290 S.C. 327, 331, 350 S.E.2d 208, 210-11 (Ct.App.1986). Although an employment contract such as the one alleged here is, as the Small court observed, a un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Weaver v. John Lucas Tree Expert Co., C.A. No.: 2:13-CV-01698-PMD
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • October 10, 2013
    ...Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., No. 4:07-cv-00369-RBH, 2008 WL 1766723, at *4 (D.S.C. Apr. 15, 2008) (quoting McPeters v. Yeargin Constr. Co., 350 S.E.2d 208, 211 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986)). Notwithstanding these prerequisites, a contract may be created by, or arise from, written or oral communication......
  • Trident Const. Co., Inc. v. Austin Co., No. CIV.A. 2:02-0702-18.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • July 16, 2003
    ...Where a contract does not fix a definite price, there must be a definite method for ascertaining it." McPeters v. Yeargin Const. Co., 290 S.C. 327, 350 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1986). The court in Southern Fire & Cas. Co. v. Teal, 287 F.Supp. 617, 621-622 (D.S.C.1968), If the contract is s......
  • Turner v. Med. Univ. of S.C., Appellate Case No. 2016-001986
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 6, 2020
    ...it has been admitted without objection is addressed to the sound discretion of the [circuit court]." McPeters v. Yeargin Constr. Co., 290 S.C. 327, 332, 350 S.E.2d 208, 211 (Ct. App. 1986). At trial, Dr. Zile testified that when he began treating Mikell, Mikell had a fifty percent or g......
  • Toth v. Square D Co., Civ. A. No. 3:87-1998-16 to 3:87-2000-16
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • May 25, 1989
    ...Co., 444 F.Supp. 1098, 1106 (D.S.C.1978); Baylor v. Bath, 189 S.C. 269, 270, 1 S.E.2d 139, 140 (1939); McPeters v. Yeargin Constr. Co., 290 S.C. 327, 331, 350 S.E.2d 208, 210-11 (Ct.App.1986). Although an employment contract such as the one alleged here is, as the Small court observed, a un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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