G & S Supply Co., Inc. v. James E. Pritchard

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

G & S
Supply Co., Inc., Appellants,

v.

David Harris
and James E. Pritchard, Respondents.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-519

Submitted November 2,2009 – Filed November 19, 2009 

AFFIRMED

Steven L. Smith, of N. Charleston, for
Appellant.

Joseph D. Thompson, III, of Charleston,
for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  G & S Supply Co., Inc. (G & S)
appeals the trial court's grant of David Harris and James E. Pritchard's motion
for summary judgment.  Specifically, G & S argues summary judgment was
inappropriate because further factual development regarding the validity of the
covenants not to compete was necessary and the covenants not to compete could
not be separated from the breach of the duty of employee loyalty.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, 278 S.C. 674, 675-76, 301 S.E.2d 142,
143 (1983) (internal citations omitted) ("Restrictive covenants not
to compete are generally disfavored and will be strictly construed against the
employer. . . .  A geographic restriction is generally reasonable if the area
covered by the restraint is limited to the territory in which the employee was
able, during the term of his employment, to establish contact with his
employer's customers."); Oxman v. Sherman, 239 S.C. 218, 225, 122
S.E.2d 559, 562 (1961) (finding a covenant not to compete with a geographic
restriction encompassing the entire state of South Carolina was unenforceable
when the employee only worked in two counties); Faces Boutique, Ltd. v.
Gibbs, 318 S.C. 39, 42, 455 S.E.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1995) ("If a
covenant not to compete is defective in one of [the factors], the covenant is
totally defective and cannot be saved.").

2.  Aiken v. World Fin.
Corp., 373 S.C. 144, 148, 644 S.E.2d 705, 708 (2007) (holding in order for
an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and
ruled upon by the trial court).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J.,
HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.