Xu Dong Sun v. Wang

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

Xu Dong Sun, Appellant,

v.

Xiaolan M. Wang, Rui Cao, and M. Vista Restaurant,
LLC, Respondents.

Shengen Sun, Appellant,

v.

Xiaolan M. Wang, Rui Cao, and Miyo's at Sandhills,
LLC, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000386

Appeal From Richland County
L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge.

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-250
Heard May 14, 2014 – Filed June 25, 2014

AFFIRMED

Allen Jackson Barnes, of Allen Jackson Barnes, Attorney
at Law, LLC, of Sumter, for Appellants.
John E. Schmidt, III and Melissa Javon Copeland, both
of Schmidt & Copeland, LLC, of Columbia, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Xu Dong Sun and Shengen Sun (collectively, Appellants) appeal
the order of the circuit court vacating the arbitration award in a breach of contract
action. They argue the arbitrator considered the legal principle that the first party
to breach a contract cannot complain when another party subsequently breaches the
contract. We affirm.

The circuit court did not err in vacating the arbitration award. See C-Sculptures,
LLC v. Brown, 394 S.C. 519, 523, 716 S.E.2d 678, 680 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[F]or a
court to vacate an arbitration award based upon an arbitrator's manifest disregard
of the law, the governing law ignored by the arbitrator must be well defined,
explicit, and clearly applicable. [M]anifest disregard of the law occurs when the
arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it, and the law
disregarded was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case." (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)), rev'd on other grounds, 403 S.C. 53, 742
S.E.2d 359 (2013). The arbitrator manifestly disregarded the established law that
the first to breach cannot later complain of a subsequent breach by the other party.
In this case, the arbitrator found Appellants charged personal purchases to M. Vista
Restaurant and Miyo's at Sandhills in violation of the contract. Therefore, they
were in breach of contract before Xiaolan M. Wang and Rui Cao reclaimed the
restaurants. See Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 376 S.C. 585, 594, 658
S.E.2d 539, 543 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Where a contract is not performed, the party
who is guilty of the first breach is generally the one upon whom all liability for the
nonperformance rests." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Furthermore,
Appellants had no right to cure and no right to notice under the contract. See
Schulmeyer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 353 S.C. 491, 495, 579 S.E.2d 132,
134 (2003) ("The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give
legal effect to the parties' intentions as determined by the contract language.");
B.L.G. Enters., Inc. v. First Fin. Ins. Co., 334 S.C. 529, 535, 514 S.E.2d 327, 330
(1999) ("When a contract is unambiguous, clear, and explicit, it must be construed
according to the terms the parties have used."); Beach Co. v. Twillman, Ltd., 351
S.C. 56, 64, 566 S.E.2d 863, 866 (Ct. App. 2002) ("[T]erms in a contract provision
must be construed using their plain, ordinary and popular meaning."); Hardee v.
Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 387, 585 S.E.2d 501, 503 (2003) ("The judicial function of
a court of law is to enforce a contract as made by the parties, and not to rewrite or
to distort, under the guise of judicial construction, contracts, the terms of which are
plain and unambiguous.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.