748 S.E.2d 801
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ritter, a Florida licensed used car wholesaler, sold twenty vehicles to BVW through BVW's agent, Todd Taylor, at Florida auctions.
- Taylor, acting for BVW, conducted check kiting that defrauded Ritter and other dealers; payments were routed through multiple accounts related to BVW and Taylor.
- Litigation consolidated after BVW sued Taylor and banks; Ritter cross-claimed against BVW and Buchanan for payment on the twenty vehicles.
- Special Referee found Taylor bound BVW as its agent; the twenty contracts listed BVW as Buyer with Taylor signing as Transferee.
- Dealer’s Act defense: the circuit court held the Act did not apply since all dealings occurred in Florida; Ritter appealed cross-issues related to limitations and Florida statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Taylor BVW's exclusive agent binding BVW? | Ritter argues Taylor acted as BVW's agent and bound BVW on the contracts. | BVW contends Taylor acted with other dealers and was not exclusive to BVW. | Taylor acted as BVW's agent; BVW liable on the contracts. |
| Should Ritter's damages be reduced for Ritter's own negligence? | Ritter maintains fault is attributable to BVW, but damages flow from contract. | BVW asserts Ritter's negligent conduct warrants comparative reduction. | No apportionment; comparative negligence not applicable to contract claim. |
| Does the South Carolina Dealer's Act apply to Ritter–BVW dealings? | Ritter argues the Act applies due to nexus with SC entities and vehicles. | BVW contends all dealings occurred in Florida; Act inapplicable. | Dealer's Act does not apply; transactions occurred entirely in Florida. |
| Was Ritter's evidence sufficient to prove unpaid vehicle damages? | Ritter presented accounting testimony showing twenty vehicles not paid for. | BVW challenges traceability of specific unpaid vehicles. | Record supports unpaid-vehicles damages; sufficient evidence for the award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976) (standard for reviewing findings of fact in nonjury trials)
- Mazloom v. Mazloom, 382 S.C. 307, 675 S.E.2d 746 (Ct.App. 2009) (appellate review of findings supported by evidence)
- Gathers v. Harris Teeter Supermarket, 282 S.C. 220, 317 S.E.2d 748 (Ct.App. 1984) (agency as a question of fact; binding authority context)
- Charleston, S.C. Registry for Golf & Tourism, Inc. v. Young Clement Rivers & Tisdale, LLP, 359 S.C. 635, 598 S.E.2d 717 (Ct.App. 2004) (agency authority and scope considerations in contract formation)
- Berberich v. Jack, 892 S.C. 278, 709 S.E.2d 607 (2011) (comparative negligence limitations in non-negligence actions)