Warner v. Weader, 22020
| Decision Date | 28 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 22020,22020 |
| Citation | 311 S.E.2d 78,280 S.C. 81 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | John R. WARNER, Jr. and Mary Ellen Warner, Respondents, v. Rod WEADER and Bob Lane Realty Corporation, Appellant. |
John M. Bleecker, Jr., Charleston, for appellants.
William L. Howard and Harry C. Belk, North Charleston, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a master's order granting summary judgment to respondents, John R. Warner, Jr. and Mary Ellen Warner, in an action for recovery of real estate commissions in connection with the sale of a home. Appellants, Rod Weader, and Bob Lane Realty, contend the master erred in allowing the Warners to recover the sale commission, which was held in escrow pursuant to an agreement between the parties. We agree and reverse.
In November 1978, the Warners contracted with E & F Properties, Inc. (seller) to purchase a newly constructed home located on Charing Cross Road in Charleston County. The contract called for closing on or before February 15, 1979. At closing, the Warners were to pay appellant a $4,475.00 sales commission. After executing the sales contract, the Warners also entered an exclusive listing agreement with appellants, which gave appellants the exclusive right, for a period of 120 days, to sell their "old" home on Erskine Avenue.
The Warners were unable to close on the sale of the "new" home on February 15, 1979, as this purchase was dependent upon the receipt of funds from the sale of the "old" home, which had not been sold.
On February 7, 1979, appellants negotiated a second contract between the Warners and the seller, which increased the down payment on the "new" home, and extended the closing date to August 1, 1979.
At this time, the parties also executed an Addendum to the second contract, which stated in pertinent part: (Emphasis added).
Appellants first argue that under the terms of the Addendum, the closing of the sale of the Erskine Avenue property (old home) was not a condition precedent to appellants receiving their commission on the sale of the Charing Cross Road property (new home). We agree.
When determining the intention of an instrument, we first look to its language. Where a contract is unambiguous, clear and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lacke v. Lacke
...effect should be given according to the ordinary and popular sense of the words employed therein. See, e.g., Warner v. Weader, 280 S.C. 81, 311 S.E.2d 78 (1983) (providing that an unambiguous contract must be construed according to the terms which the parties have used, to be taken and unde......
-
Rock v. Solar Rating & Certification Corp.
...and popular sense." C.A.N. Enters., Inc. v. S.C. Health and Human Servs. Fin. Comm'n, 373 S.E.2d 584 (S.C. 1988) (citing Warner v. Weader, 311 S.E.2d 78, 79 (S.C. 1983)). As noted, Plaintiff argues that the Program Agreement is unconscionable. [Doc. 8 at 4-6.] "In South Carolina, unconscion......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bank
...popular sense.” C.A.N. Enters., Inc. v. S.C. Health & Human Servs. Fin. Comm'n, 373 S.E.2d 584, 586 (S.C. 1988) (citing Warner v. Weader, 311 S.E.2d 78, 79 (S.C. 1983)). Ambiguities, in contrast, are resolved in favor of the insured. Greenville Cnty. v. Ins. Rsrv. Fund, 443 S.E.2d 552, 553 ......
-
Arredondo v. SNH SE Ashley River Tenant, LLC
...to the terms which the parties have used, to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense." Warner v. Weader , 280 S.C. 81, 83, 311 S.E.2d 78, 79 (1983). The plain, ordinary, and popular meaning of the noun "transfer" is a "conveyance of right, title, or interest in r......