The 's Claims For Compensation Are Inconsistent With The Terms Of The Parties

1157 WordsOct 30, 20165 Pages
II. TDT’s Claims for Compensation Are Inconsistent with the Terms of the Parties’ Agreement. A. TDT’s Invoices Are Inconsistent with The Payment Terms of Their Agreement. Assuming the validity of the contractual obligations TDT contends are owed to it—we do not—TDT is most certainly not entitled to the overstated and unsupported invoices charged to the Respondents. Notably, this argument is two-fold. First, for the reasons stated in Part I, supra, the Daily Rate Schedule is unenforceable because they demand payment for services far in excess of market rates and industry standards. Secondly, although the Work Authorization purports to set a daily rate schedule, and it provides that the work will take 14-21 days, the form is utterly silent as to how often the items in the Daily Rate Schedule are to be employed within that time period. In the absence of terms relevant to the frequency with which each item in the Daily Rate Schedule will be employed, the law will graft reasonable terms to the agreement that are in accordance with the appropriate usages of trade. Love v. Gamble, 448 S.E.2d 876, 880 (S.C. App. 1994) (“Custom and usage in an industry may supplement or qualify terms of an agreement” (internal quotations omitted)). Critically, the Daily Rate Schedule does not give TDT carte blanche to generate as many expenses as it can in the “14-21” day period on the Respondents’ account. Rather the costs and frequency of TDT’s services are limited by reasonable usages of
Open Document