Court Opinion

ID: 9846478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:42:00.381783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:34.126527
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent. Being of the view the contract sued upon is entire, and not severable, I would reverse.
The respondent here had its choice of suit in' quantum meruit or on the contract and chose the latter. The written agreement, drafted by the respondent, in my view envisions an entire project for a lump sum with payments apportioned for the convenience of the parties. The pertinent terms are:
Our fee for the above outlined Architectural and Engineering services through completion of construction documents will be a lump sum of $110,000.00.
*643Architectural and Engineering services as required during construction phase of the project will be on an hourly-basis as follows:
—Principals’ time at $25.00/hour.
—Employees time at 3 times direct payroll expense.
Payments will be according to the following schedule:
$25,000.00 due at completion of design drawings.
$25,000.00 due at 50% review of construction documents.
$25,000.00 due 30 days after issuing of completed construction documents to Contractor for bidding.
$35,000.00 due 30 days after issuing of construction documents to contractor for bidding for phase two of the project.
While I agree with the majority opinion the lump sum figure is not entirely determinative of the issue of severa-bility, neither do I view the apportioned payment schedule as dispositive of this question. See annotation, 22 A. L. R. (2d), 1343. I cannot agree the written dpcument sued upon embodies four divisible agreements independent of each other. It is obvious no one portion of the work would be of any value to appellants standing alone. I too cite Packard & Field v. Byrd, 73 S. C. 1, 51 S. E. 678 (1905) in support of my view that the portions referred to in the payment schedule of this agreement are interdependent components of an entire project, and the contract sued upon is accordingly indivisible.
Respondent seeks to recover the unpaid balance of the third installment only under the contract. I agree with appellants the trial judge erred by permitting a verdict for the reasonable value of respondent’s services to stand as recovery for quantum meruit is impermissible in this suit on the contract.
I would reverse and remand for entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Ness, J., concurs.