Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-519 - G & S Supply Co., Inc. v. James E. Pritchard

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 Court of Appeals

G & S Supply Co., Inc., Appellants,

v.

David Harris and James E. Pritchard, Respondents.


Appeal From Dorchester County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-519
Submitted November 2,2009 – Filed November 19, 2009 


AFFIRMED


Steven L. Smith, of N. Charleston, for Appellant.

Joseph D. Thompson, III, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  G & S Supply Co., Inc. (G & S) appeals the trial court's grant of David Harris and James E. Pritchard's motion for summary judgment.  Specifically, G & S argues summary judgment was inappropriate because further factual development regarding the validity of the covenants not to compete was necessary and the covenants not to compete could not be separated from the breach of the duty of employee loyalty.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, 278 S.C. 674, 675-76, 301 S.E.2d 142, 143 (1983) (internal citations omitted) ("Restrictive covenants not to compete are generally disfavored and will be strictly construed against the employer. . . .  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."); Oxman v. Sherman, 239 S.C. 218, 225, 122 S.E.2d 559, 562 (1961) (finding a covenant not to compete with a geographic restriction encompassing the entire state of South Carolina was unenforceable when the employee only worked in two counties); Faces Boutique, Ltd. v. Gibbs, 318 S.C. 39, 42, 455 S.E.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1995) ("If a covenant not to compete is defective in one of [the factors], the covenant is totally defective and cannot be saved.").

2.  Aiken v. World Fin. Corp., 373 S.C. 144, 148, 644 S.E.2d 705, 708 (2007) (holding in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.