Ophthalmology Assoc v. Budev ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •  THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD
    NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
    PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
    THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    In The Supreme Court
    Ophthalmology Associates of Charleston, P.A.,
    Respondent,
    v.
    Millin C. Budev, M. D., Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2011-187386
    Appeal From Charleston County
    Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge
    Memorandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-029
    Heard June 6, 2012 – Filed July 18, 2012
    AFFIRMED
    Sarah Patrick Spruill of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd,
    of Greenville, and Joseph DuRant Thompson, III of
    Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, of Charleston, for
    Appellant.
    Marvin I. Oberman and Harold Alan Oberman, both
    of Oberman & Oberman, of Charleston, for
    Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
    following authorities: D.A. Davis Constr. Co. v. Palmetto Props., Inc., 
    281 S.C. 415
    , 418, 
    315 S.E.2d 370
    , 372 (1984) ("In construing a contract, it is
    axiomatic that the main concern of the court is to ascertain and give effect to
    the intention of the parties. It is the court's duty to enforce the contract
    regardless of its wisdom or folly or apparent unreasonableness."); Sermons v.
    Caine & Estes Ins. Agency, Inc., 
    275 S.C. 506
    , 509, 
    273 S.E.2d 338
    , 339
    (1980) (finding a two or three year temporal restriction in an employment
    contract justifiable); Rental Unif. Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, 
    278 S.C. 674
    , 676, 
    301 S.E.2d 142
    , 143 (1983) ("A geographic restriction is generally
    reasonable if the area covered by the restraint is limited to the territory in
    which the employee was able, during the term of his employment, to
    establish contact with his employer's customers."); Tate v. LeMaster, 
    231 S.C. 429
    , 441, 
    99 S.E.2d 39
    , 45–46 (1957) ("Thus, where the sum stipulated
    is reasonably intended by the parties as the predetermined measure of
    compensation for actual damages that might be sustained by reason of
    nonperformance, the stipulation is for liquidated damages.").
    AFFIRMED.
    TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,
    concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-MO-029

Filed Date: 7/18/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/30/2024