Breach of Contract Cases

Innovative Waste Management brought this action against Dunhill Products, Crest Energy Partners, Henry Wuertz, and Edward Girardeau asserting claims for, among other claims, breach of contract, fraud, and misappropriation of trade secrets. After seven years of discovery, the circuit court found the Petitioners in contempt for violating prior discovery orders and sanctioned them by striking their answer and counterclaims. Petitioners appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Innovative Waste Management v. Crest Energy Partners GP, LLC, et al., Unpub. Op. No. 2023-UP-126 (Ct. App. 2023). We granted certiorari to decide whether the court of appeals erred in finding (1) that the Petitioners waived review of the trial court's interlocutory discovery orders under Davis v. Parkview Apartments, 409 S.C. 266, 762 S.E.2d 535 (2014); and (2) that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by striking Petitioners' answer and counter claims under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), SCRCP. We adopt the well-reasoned opinion of the court of appeals and affirm.

This appeal concerns the end of a business relationship between two brothers, Joe D. Grubb ("Joe") and James W. Grubb ("Jim").2 After many years of working together in the cash advance and rent-to-own businesses, Jim sued Joe in the Chancery Court for McMinn County ("the Trial Court"), asserting breach of contract, intentional interference with business relationships, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable relief under the LLC dissolution statute. Joe sued Jim in turn. One of the chief issues concerned Jim's claim to equal compensation from the brothers' businesses based on an alleged express oral agreement with Joe. After a trial, the Trial Court found in favor of Jim, awarding him damages based on multiple grounds. Centrally, the Trial Court found that an express oral agreement between Jim and Joe provided for equal compensation, even though Jim testified that the alleged agreement was "unspoken" and "just the way it's been." Joe appeals. We hold, inter alia, that notwithstanding the Trial Court's factual findings and credibility determinations in favor of Jim, what Jim testified to did not constitute an express oral agreement or any other kind of contract as a matter of law. Jim's alternative theories for relief are unavailing as well. We reverse.