Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114

Sales representatives - Commissions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Acts 1984, ch. 750, §§ 1-4; 1996, ch. 955, §§ 1-4.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Brock v. Positive Changes Hypnosis, LLC
Brock v. Positive Changes Hypnosis, LLC (2008) tnwd · cites it 2× “§ 215 (a)(3); failure to pay commissions in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-50-114, et seq. (“Commission Statute”); slander and defamation in violation of Tenn.”
Brock v. POSITIVE CHANGES HYPNOSIS, LLC (2008) tnwd · cites it 4× “(“the Commission Statute”) applies to any “principal” who “(A) [m]anufaetures, produces, imports, or distributes a product for wholesale; (B) [contracts with a sales representative to solicit orders for the product; and (C) [c]ompensates the sales representative, in whole or in…”
Rosenfeld v. Lu (1991) flsd “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-50-114 (1988). Tex.Bus.”
Smart v. FloWav Inc. (2023) tned · cites it 15× “Smart alleges, in relevant part, that FloWav violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114 by failing to pay the agreed upon amount of her commissions [see Doc.”
Lett v. Paymentech, Inc. (1999) cand “§§ 3-601(c)(1) (offending language deleted in 1993); Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-50-114(2) (offending language deleted in 1996).”
Mason Sales, LLC v. Talent Creation, Ltd (2025) tnmd · cites it 8× “) The proposed first amended complaint also asserts that the defendants qualify as “principals” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114 (a)(2) because they manufacture, produce, import, or distribute products for wholesale; that the defendants paid Mason Sales “commissions” within the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114(2) — 1 case
Lett v. Paymentech, Inc. (1999) cand “§§ 3-601(c)(1) (offending language deleted in 1993); Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-50-114(2) (offending language deleted in 1996).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114(a)(1) — 1 case
Mason Sales, LLC v. Talent Creation, Ltd (2025) tnmd “) The proposed first amended complaint also asserts that the defendants qualify as “principals” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114 (a)(2) because they manufacture, produce, import, or distribute products for wholesale; that the defendants paid Mason Sales “commissions” within the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114(a)(2) — 1 case
Smart v. FloWav Inc. (2023) tned “Smart alleges, in relevant part, that FloWav violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114 by failing to pay the agreed upon amount of her commissions [see Doc.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114(e) — 1 case
Mason Sales, LLC v. Talent Creation, Ltd (2025) tnmd “) The proposed first amended complaint also asserts that the defendants qualify as “principals” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114 (a)(2) because they manufacture, produce, import, or distribute products for wholesale; that the defendants paid Mason Sales “commissions” within the…”
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.