Court Opinion

ID: 9848345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:17:05.892546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:15.129284
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice TOAL:
I agree with the majority’s holding that the damage award in favor of Collins was not speculative, but I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Appellant did not satisfy his burden of proving that Collins breached the contract causing Appellant to suffer damages. Therefore, I respectfully dissent in part.
The contract between Appellant and Collins provided that the Appellant had “the right to have said machines removed within (10) ten days written notice to” Collins. While Appellant may have been unable to include in the record the letters he sent to Collins giving the ten day notice,2 Collins testified about the contents of two notice letters on cross-examination:
Appellant: Mr. Collins, I want to show you two letters ... [y]ou are welcome to read them into the record, should you elect to, sir.
Collins: This is July the 31st, 2001. And it’s a letter from [Appellant’s attorney] to [Collins’ attorney].
“Dear [Collins’ attorney], I’ve had the opportunity to review your July 24th, 2001, correspondence regarding the *352above-referenced store and related contract. Pursuant to the specific terms of the contract, [Appellant] would respectfully request that [Collins] remove its machines from all relevant locations within 10 days of the date of this letter.”
Appellant: Now under the terms of this contract, does that count as notice—
Collins: That would be notice, yes, sir.
Appellant: All right sir. And the second one, does it essentially ask for the—
Collins: This is August the 31st, 2001.
“Dear [Collins’ attorney], I received your recent letter regarding the above-referenced matter. To date, your client has not removed the machines as contemplated under the contract. Please be advised that your client has 10 days from the date of this letter to remove the machines or they will simply be placed at curbside for appropriate removal.”
Appellant: So you did get notice; right?
Collins: My lawyer did, yes, sir. And essentially, I got the notice because he was representing me.
In my view, this testimony on cross-examination clearly indicates that Collins received the requisite notice of Appellant’s contractual right to have the machines removed. That evidence, combined with Appellant’s testimony of his inventory carrying cost — a normal business expense — clearly satisfies Appellant’s burden to prove both breach and damages.
Accordingly, I would find that the trial judge erred in not awarding Appellant damages in the amount of $3,6003 resulting from Collins’ failure to remove the machines.
Acting Justice APHRODITE K. KONDUROS, concurs.

. The letters, admitted into evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 2, were lost by the Greenville County Clerk of Court.

. This amount was not disputed by Collins.