Daisy Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Abbott

I concur in parts L, II., and IV. of the majority opinion.

I respectfully dissent from part'III., which holds Abbott made no showing Daisy’s actions impacted upon the public interest. This holding is contrary to the plain language of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, the case law of South Carolina, and the facts of this case.

The UTPA provides, in pertinent part:

Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20(a) (1985). “Trade” and “commerce” are defined terms under…