Gary Realty v. Hilton Hotels Corporation

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Gary Realty Company, Inc. and Garfield Traub Development, LLC, Appellants, v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, Paul C. "Bo" Aughtry, III, Windsor/Aughtry Co., Inc., and Vista Hotel Partners, LLC, Defendants, Of Whom Hilton Hotels Corporation is Respondent. Appeal From Richland County George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-520 Heard September 13, 2011 – Filed November 29, 2011 AFFIRMED Kenneth M. Suggs and Francis M. Hinson, IV, both of Columbia, for Appellants. Elizabeth Campbell, Robert W. Foster, Jr., and Jay T. Thompson, all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Gary Realty and Garfield Traub allege they had an oral contract of exclusivity with Hilton Hotels. The circuit court found no such oral contract existed.[1] We find no evidence sufficient to establish an oral contract and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to whether the plaintiffs produced evidence that an oral contract existed: Roberts v. Gaskins, 327 S.C. 478, 483, 486 S.E.2d 771, 773 (Ct. App. 1997) ("A contract is an obligation which arises from actual agreement of the parties manifested by words, oral or written, or by conduct."); Landbank Fund VII, LLC v. Dickerson, 369 S.C. 621, 628, 632 S.E.2d 882, 886-87 (Ct. App. 2006) (stating the party alleging the oral contract "must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a meeting of the minds as to all of the essential and material terms of the alleged agreement"). As to the remaining issues, the statute of frauds and evidence of a fraudulent act for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (recognizing an appellate court need not address remaining issues when resolution of another issue is dispositive). AFFIRMED. FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] The circuit court also granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action based on a Memorandum of Understanding. The plaintiffs abandoned this issue at oral argument.