York v. Conway Ford, Inc., 24564
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 325 S.C. 170,480 S.E.2d 726 |
| Docket Number | No. 24564,24564 |
| Parties | John M. YORK, Appellant, v. CONWAY FORD, INC., Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 27 January 1997 |
Page 726
v.
CONWAY FORD, INC., Respondent.
Decided Jan. 27, 1997.
Page 727
[325 S.C. 172] John M. York, pro se.
George E. Graham, of McIver & Graham, Conway, for respondent.
MOORE, Justice:
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a continuance, dismissing a cause of action based on the Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), and refusing to set aside the jury's verdict on the remaining causes of action. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On November 3, 1989, appellant John York purchased a 1988 truck from respondent Conway Ford, Inc., for $5,350.00. Appellant claims prior to purchasing the truck, he was told by Conway Ford that the truck was a "like new" demonstrator and had never been titled to an individual. Almost immediately after taking possession, York began to have mechanical trouble with the truck and on several occasions it had to be towed. In January 1990, appellant was told by a mechanic that the truck had a bent frame from a previous accident. He then returned the truck to Conway Ford and requested his money back or the truck be replaced. Conway Ford refused. Appellant sued alleging breach of contract, fraud, and violation of the UTPA. Immediately prior to the trial in August 1994, appellant learned that Conway Ford had sold the truck two weeks earlier to pay for storage fees assessed against appellant for the truck. Based upon this information,
Page 728
appellant sought a continuance in order to amend his complaint to allege a conversion cause of action. The trial judge denied his motion for a continuance. The trial judge granted respondent's motion to dismiss the UTPA cause of action and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Conway Ford on the remaining causes of action.[325 S.C. 173] ISSUES
1) Did the trial judge err in denying appellant's motion for a continuance?
2) Did the trial judge err in dismissing the UTPA causes of action?
3) Does the jury's verdict lack support?
1) Continuance
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a continuance. Appellant moved for the continuance in the judge's chambers. Upon reconvening in the courtroom, appellant did not place the motion on the record. The record should include the ruling on appeal. Zaman v. South Carolina State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 305 S.C. 281, 408 S.E.2d 213 (1991)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bessinger v. Food Lion, Inc., C/A Nos. 3:03-2828-17, 8:03-2874-17, 4:03-2807-17, 8:03-2810-17.
...906, 908 (1989); Global Protection Corp. v. Halbersberg, 332 S.C. 149, 503 S.E.2d 483, 487 (App.1998) (citing York v. Conway Ford, Inc., 325 S.C. 170, 480 S.E.2d 726, 728 (1997)). However, conduct that affects only the parties to the transaction and not the public interest provides no basis......
-
State v. Hamilton, 3317.
...an off-the-record conference which is not made part of the record does not preserve the question for review. York v. Conway Ford, Inc., 325 S.C. 170, 480 S.E.2d 726 (1997). Here, the initial off-the-record bench conferences were later made a part of the record by the acquiescence and agreem......
-
Hundley ex rel. Hundley v. Rite Aid, 3126.
...outside the presence of a court reporter. Normally, motions must be made on the record to be preserved. York v. Conway Ford, Inc., 325 S.C. 170, 480 S.E.2d 726 (1997); see also Rule 7(b)(1), SCRCP. However, an oral motion that is later reduced to writing can preserve an issue for appeal. Co......
-
State v. Rice, 4300.
...652 S.E.2d 425 conference which is not made part of the record does not preserve the question for review. York v. Conway Ford, Inc., 325 S.C. 170, 173, 480 S.E.2d 726, 728 (1997). However, in State v. Hamilton, we held York was inapplicable when the initial off-the-record bench conference w......