Texcon, Inc. v. Anderson Aviation, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 0381,0381 |
| Citation | 326 S.E.2d 168,284 S.C. 307 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TEXCON, INC., Appellant, v. ANDERSON AVIATION, INC., Reed Garrison, and Carolina Aero Service, Respondents. . Heard |
Henry F. Floyd of Acker, Acker, Floyd & Welmaker, Pickens, for appellant.
Joseph G. Wright, III, Anderson, for respondents.
This is an action to construe a contract. Appellant Texcon, Inc., contracted with respondent Anderson Aviation, Inc., to have performed an annual inspection and other repairs to its airplane. Disputing Anderson's invoice, Texcon brought this action. Without construing the contract, the master in equity ordered Texcon to pay most of the bill. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The issues raised on appeal are (1) did Texcon authorize the repairs the master ordered it to pay for and (2) did Texcon prove that Anderson breached the contract by failing to complete repairs by a specified date.
An action to construe a written, clear contract is an action at law. J.T.H Co., Inc. v. Vane, 323 S.E.2d 794 (S.C.App., 1984). In legal actions our scope of review extends to the correction of errors of law only. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976).
A Texcon agent delivered the airplane to Anderson and signed a repair order authorizing an "Annual Inspection and Engine change and Prop overhaul." "Annual inspection", a term of art in aircraft maintenance, is defined in the Federal Aviation Administration's regulations. See 14 C.F.R. Sections 43.11-43.15. Texcon's complaint alleges Anderson went beyond these regulations and billed for unauthorized work. In its answer Anderson claims it performed according to the contract. The master did not apply the regulations, even though they are at the center of this controversy; instead, he based his decision on quantum meruit. Further, the master failed to deal with Texcon's breach of contract claim.
Texcon's claim entitles it to construction and enforcement of the contract if found to be enforceable. The master erred by failing to interpret the contract and basing his judgment on a theory not pled. Griggs v. Griggs, 199 S.C. 295, 19 S.E.2d 477 (1942). When called upon to construe contracts, courts cannot rule on their wisdom or substitute their interpretation for the agreement clearly entered into between the parties. Sloan v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 222 S.C. 248, 72 S.E.2d 446 (1952).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Moorer
...303 S.C. 330, 331, 400 S.E.2d 497, 497 (Ct.App.1990). An action to construe a contract is one at law. Texcon, Inc. v. Anderson Aviation, Inc., 284 S.C. 307, 326 S.E.2d 168 (Ct.App.1985). In legal actions, our scope of review extends only to the correction of errors of law. State Auto Proper......
-
Trotter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Williams, 112 S.C. 402, 100 S.E. 360 (1919); Somerset v. Reyner, 233 S.C. 324, 104 S.E.2d 344 (1958); Texcon, Inc. v. Anderson Aviation, Inc., 284 S.C. 307, 326 S.E.2d 168 (Ct.App.1985). Trotter presented no evidence to show that either State Farm or Ledford expressly undertook to advise hi......
-
Jacobs v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc., S-R
...of South Carolina, 1976. An action to construe a written unambiguous contract is an action at law. Texcon, Inc. v. Anderson Aviation, Inc., 284 S.C. 307, 326 S.E.2d 168 (Ct.App.1985); J.T.M. Co., Inc. v. Vane, 283 S.C. 512, 323 S.E.2d 794 (Ct.App.1984). Additional rules governing the constr......
-
Envtl. Sols. Int'l v. J.C. Constr.
... Environmental Solutions International, Inc., Appellant, v. J.C. Construction, Inc., Wolfe Creek ... Texcon, Inc. v. Anderson Aviation, Inc., 284 S.C. 307, 326 ... ...