Primetech Systems, Inc. sued Avion Systems, Inc. for payment for services rendered under a subcontract agreement. Avion subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Primetech appeals, arguing the trial court erred in granting Avion’s motion for summary judgment because there are material issues of fact in dispute. We find no error and affirm the trial court’s judgment. The record shows that Primetech executed the subcontract agreement with Avion on April 10, 2000, under which the terms and conditions were set forth for Primetech’s consultant to provide services “for PROTEK1 AND CITY OF ATLANTA Client.”2 The agreement further stated that Primetech’s compensation would be conditioned upon approval by the Client. Under the agreement, “evidence of Client approval and satisfaction shall accompany each invoice in the form of Client approved time reports.” It is undisputed that time sheets submitted by Primetech contained only one signature on the line indicating “Client Authorized Signature,” purportedly a signature by a Pro-Tech representative. Despite this fact, Avion paid Primetech for services performed on five submitted invoices between April 13, 2000 and June 10, 2000 on the assumption that Primetech’s consultant’s time reports would be approved by the Client: both Pro-Tech and the City.3 Avion did not pay Primetech for two submitted invoices, totaling $23,625.00, and Primetech filed the present suit.
1. Primetech contends there is a factual dispute regarding whether the agreement requires approval of time records by both Pro-Tech and the City. However, the contract belies this assertion. “In construing a contract, courts must give words their usual and common meaning.”4 Here, the agreement is not ambiguous. The agreement specifically stated that Primetech’s consultant was to provide services “for PROTEK AND CITY OF ATLANTA Client.” Clearly, both entities were to be considered the “Client.” The agreement further stated that Primetech’s compensation would be conditioned upon approval by the “Client.” Primetech’s argument that it was only required to obtain approval from Pro-Tech flies in the face of the agreement. The trial court did not err in granting Avion’s motion for summary judgment.
