THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Charleston Cabinets, Inc., Appellant,
Greg Smith, Respondent.
Appeal From Charleston County
Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-050
Submitted January 2, 2008 – Filed January 14, 2008
Steven L. Smith, of Charleston, for Appellant
William B. Jung, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Charleston Cabinets brought a breach of contract claim against Greg Smith, and now appeals the trial court’s finding a binding contract did not exist between the parties. We affirm.
A claim for breach of contract is an action at law. Moore v. Crowley & Assocs., 254 S.C. 170, 172, 174 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1970). “In an action at law, tried without a jury, the judge’s findings will not be disturbed unless they are without evidentiary support.” King v. PYA/Monarch, Inc., 317 S.C. 385, 388-89, 453 S.E.2d 885, 888 (1995). The underlying contract was between Charleston Cabinets and Gary Ezzo; Greg Smith was not a party to the contract. The contract’s language is clear and unambiguous. See Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 248, 449 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1994) (“When the language of a contract is plain and capable of legal construction, that language alone determines the instrument’s force and effect.”. Because there is some evidence to support the trial judge’s findings, we affirm. Rule 220(b), SCACR.
HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and THOMAS, J.J., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.