of SCDOT’s alleged breach of contract. Additionally, in Smith’s complaint, he contended the defamatory statements made by Burriss caused him to suffer damage in the form of lost profits under the contract. Later, in his answer to interrogatories, Smith itemized the damages he was seeking to recover in the slander suit: loss of the contract with SCDOT in the amount of $87,000, delay on the project in the amount of $185,000, and lost profits on the project of $100,000. In Carolina Renewal’s brief, it acknowledges Smith litigated the issue of contract damages in his slander suit when it states “[Smith] was allowed ... to interject contract damages due to a third party into [his] slander cause of action ...” See Shorb v. Shorb, 372 S.C. 623, 628 n. 3, 643 S.E.2d 124, 127 n. 3 (Ct.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). Clearly, the evidence in this case reveals
holding that party waived argument by failing to brief it on appeal holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact holding that a party is not bound by the testimony of a witness it calls holding that each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyeragent holding a party is bound by a concession in his brief