Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-34-104 (2026)
[Repealed] Privity not required
✓ current as of May 2026
In all causes of action for personal injury or property damage brought on account of negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty, including actions brought under the Uniform Commercial Code, compiled in title 47, chapters 1-9, privity shall not be a requirement to maintain such action.
Repealed by 2021EX3 Tenn. Acts, ch. 6, s 7, eff. 11/12/2021.
Acts 1972, ch. 670, § 1; T.C.A., § 23-3004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Messer Griesheim Indus., Inc. v. Cryotech of Kingsport, Inc., 131 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Messer Griesheim Indus., Inc. v. Cryotech of Kingsport, Inc., 131 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “However, Messer contends that it asserted claims for property damage and that it’s tort claims should be allowed pursuant to T.C.A. 29-34-104. Specifically, Messer contends that tank cars it used for shipping were damaged as a result of contact with the contaminated carbon…”
John Martin Co. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc., 819 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn. 1991). “1987); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-34-104 . We have examined the competing views.”
Turnage v. Oldham, 346 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (W.D. Tenn. 2018). “§ 29-34-104 (providing that, "[i]n all causes of action for personal injury or property damage brought on account of negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty, including actions brought under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, privity shall not be a…”
Redbud Coop. Corp. v. Clayton, 700 S.W.2d 551 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “Section 29-34-104. 18 . Because of the extent of the developers’ failure to adhere to its grading and drainage plan, we need not address the propriety of making field changes based upon the discovery of unforeseen subsurface conditions or making minor variations from the plan…”
First Nat'l Bank of Louisville v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925 (Tenn. 1991). “Earlier, in 1972, the legislature enacted T.C.A. § 29-34-104, which abolishes the requirement of privity in “all causes of action for personal injury or property damage brought on account of negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty, including actions brought under the…”
Baker v. Promark Prods. West, Inc., 692 S.W.2d 844 (Tenn. 1985). “1979), in which this Court held that the Uniform Commercial Code was impliedly amended by T.C.A. § 29-34-104 (formerly § 23-3004), which abolished the requirement of privity in actions “for personal injury or property damage brought on account of negligence, strict liability or…”
Corp. Air Fleet of Tennessee, Inc. v. Gates Learjet, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 1076 (M.D. Tenn. 1984). “§ 29-34-104 provides: Privity Not Required.”
Turner v. Aldor Co. of Nashville, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-34-104 (1980). Thus, under Tenn.”
Messer Griesheim Indus., Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 194 S.W.3d 466 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “After noting the distinction between recovering on a claim for economic loss versus property damage, and because there was no privity of contract between Messer and Eastman, we set about to determine into which of these two categories Messer’s alleged damages fell.”
Motley v. Fluid Power of Memphis, Inc., 640 S.W.2d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). “We hold that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendants and in dismissing the plaintiffs’ lawsuit based upon breach of express and implied warranties.”
Briggs v. Riversound Ltd. P'ship, 942 S.W.2d 529 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “The Plaintiffs’ argue that since this is a negligence claim, privity is not required to maintain this action under Tennessee’s antiprivity statute, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-34-104, which states: Privity not required.”
Billy Hughes v. Lee Masonry Prods., Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-34-104 . That statute, however, removes the privity requirement for only actions involving personal injury or property damage.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.