Southeastern Steel Co., Inc. v. Burton Block and Concrete Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 21017,21017 |
| Citation | 273 S.C. 634,258 S.E.2d 888 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 26 UCC Rep.Serv. 1151 SOUTHEASTERN STEEL COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. BURTON BLOCK AND CONCRETE COMPANY, INC., Respondent. |
J. Thomas Mikell, of Harvey, Battey, Macloskie & Bethea, Beaufort, and James H. Messervy, of Messervy & Them, Summerville, for appellant.
Barry L. Johnson, of Dowling, Sanders, Dukes, Novit & Svalina, Beaufort, for respondent.
Heretofore on the 31st day of July, 1979, this Court filed its opinion in this case. It is now before us as a result of a petition for a rehearing. Upon a consideration of the petition, it is ordered that the last paragraphs of our former opinion be withdrawn and the following substituted therefor.
The appellant, Southeastern Steel Co., Inc., brought this breach of contract action against the respondent, Burton Block and Concrete Co., Inc., seeking $27,236.21 for steel reinforcement bars (rebar) delivered to respondent. Burton claimed an offset of $14,306.09 for defective materials and $2,291.48 in sales tax exemptions.
Upon referral of the issues by consent, the special referee concluded that Southeastern, the seller, should have judgment for $27,236.21 against Burton, the buyer, and that Southeastern should apply to the South Carolina Tax Commission for a refund of the sales tax paid and reimburse that amount to Burton. The trial court reversed in part, reducing Southeastern's judgment to $10,633.68, allowing the offset claimed by Burton. We reverse in part, concluding that the trial court's decision to allow the $14,306.09 offset for defective materials was controlled by an error of law. We affirm in part, concluding that Burton was entitled to an offset of $2,291.48 for sales tax exemptions.
This litigation involves the Beaufort Waterfront Project, a plan to construct a seawall with landscaped parks designed to place more recreational and economic emphasis on the bay. Some of the construction included prestressed concrete, or concrete containing steel bars for increased strength.
Burton was a subcontractor in the project to furnish the prestressed concrete members. Its first fabricator of rebar, Savannah Steel Co., ceased supplying the steel bars because Burton refused to pay for the materials ordered. Burton then contracted with Southeastern to supply rebar, and 31 different deliveries were made to Burton's job site by Southeastern.
According to Burton, the deliveries were inspected at once, and complaints of non-conforming and/or defective rebar were made by telephone to Southeastern. Southeastern denied receiving any such notification until it instituted this suit for the balance due on the contract. At the time of the hearing, the disputed materials were still located on the Burton job site.
The disposition of this case turns on whether the alleged oral notice of defects purportedly given to Southeastern was sufficient to establish Burton's rejection of the goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. The special referee concluded it was not, and held that Burton had failed to notify Southeastern of any defective or non-conforming items within a reasonable time. The trial court held the alleged oral notice was sufficient to constitute rejection by Burton. We disagree. 1
South Carolina Code § 36-2-602 provides the UCC formula for rejection:
2
In commenting on the above code section, White and Summers state:
(Emphasis supplied). White and Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, § 8-3, p. 265 (1972).
There was no evidence of rejection other than testimony of Burton's alleged telephone calls to Southeastern. While Burton's witnesses conceded that written notice of defects amounting to over $14,000.00 in offsets would have been the better business practice, none was given. Respondent's counsel was unable to cite this Court to any case holding oral notice to be sufficient. Although Code § 36-2-602 does not explicitly require written notice, we believe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller
...it up. The cases holding that oral notice is not sufficient are not applicable here. See, e.g., Southeastern Steel Co. v. Burton Block & Concrete Co., Inc., 273 S.C. 634, 258 S.E.2d 888 (1979). Rather, we opt for the Code rule that any notice must be "seasonable"--a notice that reasonably i......
-
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Miller, Docket No. 55966
...up. The cases holding that oral notice is not sufficient are not applicable here. See, e.g., Southeastern Steel Co., Inc. v. Burton Block & Concrete Co., Inc., 273 S.C. 634, 258 S.E.2d 888 (1979). Rather, I would opt for the UCC rule that any notice must be "reasonable"--a notice that reaso......
-
Plantation Shutter Co., Inc. v. Ezell
...determined that for a rejection of goods to be effective, a buyer must notify a seller in writing. Southeastern Steel Co. v. Burton Block & Concrete Co., 273 S.C. 634, 258 S.E.2d 888 (1979); American Fast Print Ltd. v. Design Prints of Hickory, 288 S.C. 46, 339 S.E.2d 516 The buyer does not......
-
Southeastern Steel Co. v. W.A. Hunt Const. Co., Inc.
...this conclusion, the judge relied on a previous case where Southeastern Steel was also the plaintiff: Southeastern Steel Co. v. Burton Block & Con. Co., 273 S.C. 634, 258 S.E.2d 888 (1979). There, our Supreme Court considered whether an oral notice of a rejection of goods was sufficient. Th......