Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-1873
THAVIAN FORD,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
BIG DADDY DRAYAGE LLC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:13-cv-00175-SB)
Submitted:
Decided:
March 5, 2014
PER CURIAM:
Big
Daddy
Drayage
LLC,
(BDD)
appeals
from
the
breach
of
contract
complaint
on
the
basis
of
related.
We affirm.
Ford was an independent contractor for BDD pursuant
to
the
terms
of
written
Independent
Contractor
Agreement
(ICA) that Ford and BDD entered into in September 2008 and
renewed in 2011. 1
of a vehicle.
All
prior
contemporaneous
agreements
are
The parties provide the 2011 renewal but not the original
2008 contract.
It is unclear whether the terms of the renewal
contract were similar or identical to the original contract.
Nonetheless, the parties rely exclusively on the 2011 contract.
be
construed
against
the
drafter,
BDD.
The
district
28
ground
U.S.C.
for
1292(b),
difference
noting
of
that
there
opinion.
was
BDD
then
substantial
applied
for
rules
of
Id.
contract
construction
are
designed
to
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 594 S.E.2d 511, 518 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004).
Under
South
Carolina
law, 3
where
contract
is
clear
and
543
S.E.2d
271,
274
(S.C.
Ct.
Smith-Cooper v.
App.
2001);
see
also
Jordan v. Sec. Group, Inc., 428 S.E.2d 705, 707 (S.C. 1993).
(S.C.
1997).
Ct.
App.
Where
contract
is
found
to
be
to
Ambiguities
Wheeler
v.
determine
should
be
Dynamic
the
intent
construed
Engg,
Inc.,
of
the
parties.
against
the
62
634,
F.3d
drafter.
638
(4th
Id.
See
Cir.
1995).
In their briefs, the parties essentially dispute the
applicability of two cases to the instant proceedings: Sucampo
and Drews Distrib., Inc. v. Silicon Gaming, Inc., 245 F.3d 347
(4th Cir. 2001).
applied
to
the
other.
We
find
the
instant
case
by
the
forum-selection
clause
in
the
ICA.
clause
in
Sucampo
was
signed
before
the
the first.
contract
with
the
forum-selection
clause
included
merger
the
fact
that
BDD
would
only
lease
with
BDD
in
order
for
the
LPA
to
be
in
effect.
not
require
or
even
mention
lease-to-purchase
failure to except the LPA would have voided the LPA, and neither
party argues that the LPA was void.
the
material
differences
between
the
instant
case and Sucampo and Drews, and the fact that BDD drafted the
agreements in question, the district court correctly ruled that
the
ICAs
current
conflict
affirm.
legal
before
forum-selection
arising
clause
out
of
is
the
not
applicable
LPA.
to
Accordingly,
the
we
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED