We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: D.A. Davisá Constr. Co. v. Palmetto Props., Inc., 281 S.C. 415, 418, 315 S.E.2d 370, 372 (1984) ("In construing a contract, it is axiomatic that the main concern of the court is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties.á It is the court's duty to enforce the contract regardless of its wisdom or folly or apparent unreasonableness."); Sermons v. Caine & Estes Ins. Agency, Inc., 275 S.C. 506, 509, 273 S.E.2d 338, 339 (1980) (finding a two or three year temporal restriction in an employment contract justifiable); Rental Unif. Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, 278 S.C. 674, 676, 301 S.E.2d 142, 143 (1983) ("A geographic restriction is generally reasonable if the area covered by the restraint is limited to the territory in which the employee was able, during the term of his employment, to establish contact with his employer's customers."); Tate v. LeMaster, 231 S.C. 429, 441, 99 S.E.2d 39, 45-46 (1957) ("Thus, where the sum stipulated is reasonably intended by the parties as the predetermined measure of compensation for actual damages that might be sustained by reason of nonperformance, the stipulation is for liquidated damages.").
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.