Court Opinion

ID: 9600032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:23:20.974324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:48.914313
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON PETITION FOR A REHEARING
Goolsby, Judge:
The respondent The Key Company, Inc., doing business as Great Games, petitions this court for a rehearing.
Great Games claims, relying on this court’s opinion in Noack Enterprises, Inc. v. Country Corner Interiors of Hilton Head Island, Inc., 290 S. C. 475, 351 S. E. (2d) 347 (Ct. App. 1986), cert. granted, Davis’ Advance Sheets, No. 18 at 2 (Ct. App. May 30, 1987), that the acts and practices of Fameco Distributors, Inc., affected the public interest in that they have the potential for repetition.
Nowhere in its complaint, however, does Great Games allege that Fameco’s unfair and deceptive acts and practices have an impact upon the public interest in that they have the potential for repetition. Indeed, the record fails to show that Great Games ever advanced this theory as a basis for its claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The complaint simply alleges that Great Games and Fameco entered into an agreement whereby Great Games agreed to place amusement machines upon Fameco’s premises, that Fameco “during the course” of the contract “committed a number of unfair and deceptive acts and practices” by “unplugging the machines” and “deliberately mov[ing] the machines to less desirable locations in [its] place of business,” that Fameco “deliberately breached the contract *528between the parties,” that these actions damaged Great Games, that Fameco’s actions “are unfair and deceptive acts and practices committed by [Fameco] in the course and conduct of its business and trade,” and that Fameco’s conduct “constituted] a violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act____”
Great Games’ cause of action, as alleged and as tried, involved nothing more than a breach of contract that affected no one but the parties to the contract. An intentional breach of a valid contract is not, without more, a violation of the UTPA.
Accordingly, we adhere to our earlier opinion. The stay of remittitur heretofore granted is revoked.