Opinion ID: 1363940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: unified or separate agreement?

Text: The Base Agreement provided specifically for arbitration, to which the Side Agreement was silent. MCDC contends that the two documents constituted separate contracts, so that Sentry was entitled to arbitration of the Base Agreement dispute only. We disagree. In Klutts Resort Realty, v. Down `Round Development Corp. , 268 S.C. 80, 232 S.E. (2d) 20 (1977), this Court held The general rule is that, in the absence of anything indicating a contrary intention, where instruments are executed at the same time , by the same parties , for the same purpose and in the course of the same transaction , the courts will consider and construe the instruments together. The theory is that the instruments are effectively one instrument or contract. [Emphasis supplied.] 268 S.C. at 88, 232 S.E. (2d) at 24. The Circuit Court found as a fact that the two documents comprised a single, integrated agreement. We agree. This litigation involves a breach of contract and the enforcement of a statutory lien. Both are actions at law. Moore v. Crowley & Associates, Inc. , 254 S.C. 170, 174 S.E. (2d) 340 (1970) (breach of contract); Raines v. Sanders , 134 S.C. 284, 132 S.E. (2d) 581 (1926) (mechanic's lien). In a non-jury case the findings of fact will not be disturbed unless found to be without reasonable evidentiary support. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville , 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E. (2d) 773 (1976). The Side Agreement, by reference, incorporates the Base Agreement and its general conditions. A modification is defined in the Base Agreement as a written amendment signed by both parties. The Side Agreement meets this definition. Thus, each incorporates the other. This reasonably supports the Circuit Judge's finding of a single, integrated contract subject to arbitration. The two documents refer to different components of the contract's price term: payment for actual work and payment for profit. Under the Klutts test, the purpose of both is the same: compensation for project construction. The Circuit Court correctly ordered that Sentry's claims under both documents be decided by arbitration. Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. Sections 15-48-130 (Supp. 1984) and 15-48-140 (Supp. 1984) provide the exclusive procedures for vacating or modifying awards where arbitrators exceed their powers or award upon a matter not properly submitted to them. MCDC filed no motion to vacate or modify within 90 days of delivery of a copy of the award. Consequently, the award became the law of the case.