severability clause in South Carolina

2024Thus, we decline to analyze whether the unconscionable provisions are severable, as doing so would be the result of the Court rewriting the parties' contract rather than enforcing their stated intentions."). 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) ("[An] appellate court need not address remaining issues when [resolution] of [a] prior issue is dispositive.").

2024See Smith, 417 S.C. at 50 n.6, 790 S.E.2d at 5 n.6 ("Because the arbitration agreement does not contain a severability clause, we find the parties did not intend for the Court to strike unconscionable provisions from the arbitration agreement.

2024See Smith, 417 S.C. at 50 n.6, 790 S.E.2d at 5 n.6 ("Because the arbitration agreement does not contain a severability clause, we find the parties did not intend for the Court to strike unconscionable provisions from the arbitration agreement.

2024See id. at 622, 879 S.E.2d at 760 ("We are specifically concerned that honoring the severability clause here creates an incentive for . . . home builders to overreach, knowing that if the contract is found unconscionable, a narrower version will be substituted and enforced against an innocent, inexperienced homebuyer."); see also McKee v. AT & T Corp., 191 P.3d 845, 861 (Wash. 2008) ("Permitting severability . . . in the face of a contract that is permeated with unconscionability only encourages those who draft contracts of adhesion to overreach.

2022See Solymar Invs., Ltd. v. Banco Santander S.A., 672 F.3d 981, 990 (11th Cir. 2012) (describing two-step process and explaining that "Granite Rock's threshold inquiry of whether a contract was formed necessarily precedes" the "determination of whether any subsequent challenges are to the entire agreement, or to the arbitration clause specifically" under the severability principle); see also In re StockX Customer Data Sec.

2022Cf. Maria Kalogredis et al., Addressing Increasing Uncertainty in the Law of Non-Competes, Ass'n Corp. Couns. 36 (Apr. 2018), https://www.hangley.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ Addressing- Increasing-Uncertainty-in-the-Law-of-Non-Competes.pdf (expressing a similar concern in the context of non-compete agreements); Shotts, 86 So. 3d at 478 (explaining it did not "make sense for a court to remake [the arbitration] agreement to excise the offending provisions.

2022Parts Antitrust Litig.), 951 F.3d 377, 386 (6th Cir. 2020))); accord MZM Constr.

2017See Raimonde, 325 N.E.2d at 547 (permitting courts to fashion reasonable contracts “between the parties, in accord with their intention at the time of contracting” (emphasis added)). 3 I believe this court would also be prevented from severing certain portions of the agreement pursuant to the severability clause because of the interrelated nature of the paragraphs.

2016See Simpson, 373 S.C. at 34 , 644 S.E.2d at 673 . 7 .

2016See Simpson, 373 S.C. at 34 , 644 S.E.2d at 673 . 7 .

2012See 2006 Act No. 346 § 8 (stating that if a court were to find any portion of the statute unconstitutional, that holding does not affect the rest of the statute and the General Assembly would have passed it without that ineffective part); see also Dean v. Timmerman, 234 S.C. 35, 43 , 106 S.E.2d 665, 669 (1959) (“When the residue of an Act, sans that portion found to be unconstitutional, is capable of being executed in accordance with the Legislative intent, independent of the rejected portion, the Act as a whole should not be stricken as being in violation of a Constitutional Provision.”). .

2012See 2006 Act No. 346 § 8 (stating that if a court were to find any portion of the statute unconstitutional, that holding does not affect the rest of the statute and the General Assembly would have passed it without that ineffective part); see also Dean v. Timmerman, 234 S.C. 35, 43 , 106 S.E.2d 665, 669 (1959) (“When the residue of an Act, sans that portion found to be unconstitutional, is capable of being executed in accordance with the Legislative intent, independent of the rejected portion, the Act as a whole should not be stricken as being in violation of a Constitutional Provision.”). .

2007Servs. v. Wise, 217 Ga.App. 36 , 456 S.E.2d 631, 635 (1995) (upholding the trial court’s application of a severability clause to an arbitration agreement “in light of the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements and the parties’ intentions in entering into those agreements”).

2007Servs. v. Wise, 217 Ga.App. 36 , 456 S.E.2d 631, 635 (1995) (upholding the trial court’s application of a severability clause to an arbitration agreement “in light of the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements and the parties’ intentions in entering into those agreements”).