303 Associates v. A to Z Coatings & Sons

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

303 Associates,
LLC, Respondent,

v.

A to Z Coatings
& Sons, Inc., Ray Stocks, and R.D. Ayers, Defendants,

Of whom A to Z
Coatings and Sons, Inc. is the Appellant.

Appeal From Beaufort County

Curtis L. Coltrane, Master in Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-548

Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed
November 23, 2009

AFFIRMED

R. Thayer Rivers, Jr., of Ridgeland, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM: A to Z Coatings and Sons, Inc. (A to Z), appeals the
master in equity's order finding A to Z breached its contract and warranty for
the installation of a roofing system on property owned by 303 Associates, LLC
(303).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As
to whether the master erred in finding A to Z breached the terms of the
contract: Hawkins v. Greenwood Dev. Corp., 328 S.C. 585, 593, 493 S.E.2d 875, 879 (Ct.
App. 1997) (explaining a party claiming impossibility of performance has the
burden of proving the defense and impossibility must be real and not a mere
inconvenience); Id. ("A party to a contract cannot be excused from
performance on the theory of impossibility of performance unless it is made to
appear that the thing to be done cannot by any means be accomplished, for if it
is only improbable or out of the power of the obligor, it is not deemed in law
impossible."); Moon v. Jordan, 301 S.C. 161, 164, 390 S.E.2d 488,
490 (Ct. App. 1990) (holding a  party to a contract must perform its
obligations under a contract unless its performance is rendered impossible by
an act of God, the law, or by a third party).

2. 
As to whether the master in equity erred in its award of damages and finding A
to Z liable for a contract it did not sign: In re Care and Treatment of
McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93, 551 S.E.2d 235, 239 (2001) ("A bald
assertion, without supporting argument, does not preserve an issue for
appeal.").

3.  As to whether the master in equity erred in
finding A to Z liable for attorney's fees: Historic Charleston Holdings, LLC
v. Mallon, 381 S.C. 417, 436, 673 S.E.2d 448, 458 (2009) (stating attorney's fees are recoverable if authorized by contract or statute).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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