United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division. Carl G. Ferguson, Jack H. Tedards, Jr. Plaintiff Coker International, Inc. Burlington has moved for summary judgment as to each of the causes of action advanced by Coker. For the reasons stated herein, the court grants Burlington's motion for summary judgment as to each of Coker's causes of action. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Burlington has submitted two affidavits of David W. In opposition to the motion, Coker has submitted two affidavits of its president, Jackson R.
Coker, dated July 13, and August 13, , respectively. The affidavits are largely consistent with regard to the underlying facts. To the extent there may be factual disputes, the Court has accepted the facts as asserted by Coker for purposes of this motion.
The parties agree that the contract was evidenced by a two-page Burlington invoice, which provided in relevant part:. During that time, Coker did pay the balance due for a total of 34 looms, and removed those looms from the Burlington plant.
Eventually, Burlington declared the contract terminated due to Coker's breach and placed the remaining looms back on the market, retaining the balance of the non-refundable down payment. One document of particular interest is a letter agreement of May 4, Burlington had written to Coker on April 13, stating that it was terminating the agreement and retaining the non-refundable down payment.
Coker protested, and its attorney wrote to Burlington asking that the parties meet "to attempt to resolve the differences. In response, Burlington proposed the letter agreement of May 4, , in which it reserved its rights under previous defaults but agreed to sell the remaining looms and give credit for the down payment if Coker paid the balance by May 31, , and picked up all the looms by June 10, Coker signed and returned the letter agreement.
