From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ophthalmology Associates of Charleston, P.A. v. Budev

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 18, 2012
2012-MO-029 (S.C. Jul. 18, 2012)

Opinion

2012-MO-029

07-18-2012

Ophthalmology Associates of Charleston, P.A., Respondent, v. Millin C. Budev, M. D., Appellant.

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.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard June 6, 2012

Appeal From Charleston County Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge Appellate Case No. 2011-187386

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.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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


Summaries of

Ophthalmology Associates of Charleston, P.A. v. Budev

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 18, 2012
2012-MO-029 (S.C. Jul. 18, 2012)
Case details for

Ophthalmology Associates of Charleston, P.A. v. Budev

Case Details

Full title:Ophthalmology Associates of Charleston, P.A., Respondent, v. Millin C…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jul 18, 2012

Citations

2012-MO-029 (S.C. Jul. 18, 2012)