THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.� IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Bill Ardis d/b/a Ardis Roofing,        Respondent,

v.

The Ray Company, Inc., also known as The Ray Roofing Company, Inc. and/or G.G. Ray Company,        Appellant.

Appeal From York County
John Buford Grier, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2004-MO-038
Heard June 10, 2004 - Filed July 26, 2004

AFFIRMED

Lucy London McDow, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.

C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� After a review of the record on appeal, this Court finds that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the trial judge�s ruling that (1) The Ray Company (Ray) breached its contract with Ardis Roofing in failing to pay the balance due on the contract and that (2) Ardis Roofing did not breach the implied warranty of suitability for a particular purpose, especially considering that implied in the Ray-Eagles Landing contract was Ray�s obligation to ensure that the construction project complied with the local building codes.� See Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976) (Upon review of an action at law tried without a jury, �the findings of the judge will not be disturbed � unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the judge�s findings.�).� ��

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.