Sheek v. Lee
| Decision Date | 22 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22576,22576 |
| Citation | 345 S.E.2d 496,289 S.C. 327 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Arthur E. SHEEK and Barbara L. Sheek, Respondents, v. Robert Michael LEE and Candace Rix Lee, Appellants. . Heard |
H. Michael Gainey and Everette Hoke Babb, Mauldin, for appellants.
Robert M. Ariail of Mitchell & Ariail, Greenville, for respondents.
Appellants Lee (buyers) appeal an order of the master which awarded respondents Sheek (sellers) damages for the buyers' failure to close a real estate transaction. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The buyers contracted to purchase the sellers' home and deposited $2,000 as earnest money. When the buyers failed to consummate the sale, the sellers retained the earnest money and brought suit for breach of contract. The master awarded the sellers damages of $7,189.53. The buyers directly appealed to this Court.
Buyers assert error in the master's finding that the damages awarded were general damages rather than special damages.
General damages are those which must necessarily result from the wrongful act upon which liability is based. It is not sufficient to show that the damages sought are the natural result of the breach. "Damages for losses that are the natural and proximate, but not the necessary, result of the injury may be recovered only when such special damages are sufficiently stated and claimed." (Emphasis added). Hobbs v. Carolina Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 194 S.C. 543, 10 S.E.2d 25, 28 (1940). The law implies general damages. Special damages, however, are not implied by law because they do not necessarily result from the wrong. Carolina Life Insurance Company v. Bank of Greenwood, 217 S.C. 277, 60 S.E.2d 599 (1950). Special damages must be alleged in the complaint to avoid surprise to the other party. Crozier v. Charleston & W.C. Railway Company, 222 S.C. 121, 71 S.E.2d 800 (1952).
Sellers alleged only general damages in their complaint. We agree with buyers that costs related to construction of a sellers' new home do not necessarily result from the breach of a real estate contract. These damages occur because of the special circumstances of the sellers, and therefore must be specially pleaded. These damages were improperly awarded.
We reverse that portion of the order which awarded damages relative to the sellers' new home. These damages totaled $5,625.35. The award is therefore reduced to $1,564.18. We agree with the master that the remaining elements of damage were recoverable as general damages.
The buyers next assert error in awarding any damages at all,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callum v. CVS Health Corp.
...result from the wrong" and they must "must be alleged in the complaint to avoid surprise to the other party." Sheek v. Lee, 289 S.C. 327, 329, 345 S.E.2d 496, 497 (1986). If the plaintiff simply restates the damages from another cause of action and does not specifically allege special damag......
- Ravan v. Greenville County
-
Allegro, Inc. v. Scully
...568, 633 S.E.2d at 511. “Special damages must be alleged in the complaint to avoid surprise to the other party.” Sheek v. Lee , 289 S.C. 327, 329, 345 S.E.2d 496, 497 (1986). Both the court of appeals and the trial court concluded this argument was unpreserved because trial counsel did not ......
-
Flucker v. Gantt (In re Flucke)
...Hackworth v. Greywood at Hammett, LLC, 385 S.C. 110, 117, 682 S.E.2d 871, 875 (App. 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Sheek v. Lee, 289 S.C. 327, 327, 345 S.E.2d 496, 497 (1986))). In the instant case, the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege any special damages that were incurred as a result......