contractual claim in Tennessee

2016Therefore, if a contractual clause, read in the proper context, unambiguously mandates a particular result, we will not disturb that result merely because it may be harsh for one party or the other. * * * ―Any number of papers may be taken together to make out the written expression of the contract of the parties, provided there is sufficient connection between the papers.‖ Springfield Tobacco Redryers Corp. v. City of Springfield, 293 S.W.2d 189, 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1956). ―When the parties’ agreement is contained in more than one document, all the documents should be considered together.‖ Ew

2016Therefore, if a contractual clause, read in the proper context, unambiguously mandates a particular result, we will not disturb that result merely because it may be harsh for one party or the other. * * * ―Any number of papers may be taken together to make out the written expression of the contract of the parties, provided there is sufficient connection between the papers.‖ Springfield Tobacco Redryers Corp. v. City of Springfield, 293 S.W.2d 189, 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1956). ―When the parties’ agreement is contained in more than one document, all the documents should be considered together.‖ Ew

2024See Fannon v. City of LaFollette, 329 S.W.3d 418, 430 (Tenn. 2010) (defining a prevailing party as one who has succeeded on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the party sought in bringing suit).

2020See Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595, 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (noting that in light of a remand for further analysis on property valuation, “we must necessarily . . . vacate the distribution of marital property”).

2020See Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d at 623-24 (noting that “courts must rely on values of the marital property as close in time as possible to the division of marital property” and leaving it in the “discretion of the trial court” as to whether updated information was necessary or appropriate).

2016Supply Co. v. Wingert, 317 S.W.3d 530, 537 (Tex.Ct.App.2010).

2011See Waddell v. Davis, 571 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978) (noting that the agent “negligently breached” the contract to obtain uninsured motorist coverage).

2011See Waddell v. Davis, 571 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1978) (noting that the agent "negligently breached” the contract to obtain uninsured motorist coverage).

2011Capital Corp., 518 S.W.2d 232, 234 (Tenn. 1974); 1 New Appleman on Insurance Law § 2.05[3][c], at 2-41. 12 The Court of Appeals has recognized that an insurance agent’s failure to procure insurance coverage gives rise to both a contractual claim and a negligence claim.

2010In addition, in Tennessee, to establish waiver, "there must be consideration or a substitute, such as reliance, which will give rise to an estoppel.” 13 Williston on Contracts-Forms § 39F:9 (4th ed.) (indicating Tennessee is in minority on this point); see Moore v. Union Stock Yards, Inc., 169 Tenn. 638 , 90 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1936); Bokor v. Holder, 722 S.W.2d 676, 680 (Tenn.Ct.App.1986); Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343, 346 (6th Cir.1993) ("Tennessee law requires either consideration or an element of estoppel for a contractual waiver.”). 57 .

2010In addition, in Tennessee, to establish waiver, "there must be consideration or a substitute, such as reliance, which will give rise to an estoppel.” 13 Williston on Contracts-Forms § 39F:9 (4th ed.) (indicating Tennessee is in minority on this point); see Moore v. Union Stock Yards, Inc., 169 Tenn. 638 , 90 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1936); Bokor v. Holder, 722 S.W.2d 676, 680 (Tenn.Ct.App.1986); Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343, 346 (6th Cir.1993) ("Tennessee law requires either consideration or an element of estoppel for a contractual waiver.”). 57 .

2010In addition, in Tennessee, to establish waiver, "there must be consideration or a substitute, such as reliance, which will give rise to an estoppel.” 13 Williston on Contracts-Forms § 39F:9 (4th ed.) (indicating Tennessee is in minority on this point); see Moore v. Union Stock Yards, Inc., 169 Tenn. 638 , 90 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1936); Bokor v. Holder, 722 S.W.2d 676, 680 (Tenn.Ct.App.1986); Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343, 346 (6th Cir.1993) ("Tennessee law requires either consideration or an element of estoppel for a contractual waiver.”). 57 .

2010In addition, in Tennessee, to establish waiver, "there must be consideration or a substitute, such as reliance, which will give rise to an estoppel.” 13 Williston on Contracts-Forms § 39F:9 (4th ed.) (indicating Tennessee is in minority on this point); see Moore v. Union Stock Yards, Inc., 169 Tenn. 638 , 90 S.W.2d 524, 527 (1936); Bokor v. Holder, 722 S.W.2d 676, 680 (Tenn.Ct.App.1986); Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343, 346 (6th Cir.1993) ("Tennessee law requires either consideration or an element of estoppel for a contractual waiver.”). 57 .

1993In Samuelson v. Chutich, 187 Colo. 155, 159 , 529 P.2d 631, 633-34 (1974), we adopted Justice Traynor’s statement in Gagne v. Bertram, 43 Cal.2d 481 , 275 P.2d 15 (1954), on a contractor’s duty to its customer in the performance of a service contract: ‘“The services of experts are sought because of their special skill.

1993In Samuelson v. Chutich, 187 Colo. 155, 159 , 529 P.2d 631, 633-34 (1974), we adopted Justice Traynor’s statement in Gagne v. Bertram, 43 Cal.2d 481 , 275 P.2d 15 (1954), on a contractor’s duty to its customer in the performance of a service contract: ‘“The services of experts are sought because of their special skill.