HOSIE JOHNSON ET AL. v. NICK DATTILO ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2011)
The purchasers of a lot and newly constructed residence filed this action against the builders, seeking damages and rescission of the construction and sale agreement. The plaintiffs allege the defendants breached the agreement by failing to construct the home in accordance with "good building practices," and breached the implied warranty of workmanship. They also allege that statements made by the foreman during construction, concerning the condition of the property, amount to a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. section 47-18-104(b)(7), as well as common law negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on all claims. Finding plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of key elements in each of their claims, we affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/johnsonh_071511.pdf
Showing posts with label directed verdict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label directed verdict. Show all posts
March 14, 2011
Court Reviews whether Defendant Violated the Consumer Protection Act in a Cases Involving the Construction of a Home
ROBERT SHROUT, et al., v. HALL CONSTRUCTION, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 14, 2011)
This case arose over the construction of a home for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued the construction company and a bank and several individuals. The Trial Court resolved the issues as to defendants, except Mark Rodriguez, prior to trial. The plaintiffs' case against Rodriguez was tried by the Trial Court who directed a verdict at the end of plaintiffs' proof. Plaintiffs appealed to this Court.
Plaintiffs insisted that material evidence established a violation of the Consumer Protection Act by defendant, and the directed verdict should be reversed. Upon review of the evidentiary record, we conclude that the Trial Judge properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and we affirm the Trial Court's Judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/shroutr_031411.pdf
This case arose over the construction of a home for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued the construction company and a bank and several individuals. The Trial Court resolved the issues as to defendants, except Mark Rodriguez, prior to trial. The plaintiffs' case against Rodriguez was tried by the Trial Court who directed a verdict at the end of plaintiffs' proof. Plaintiffs appealed to this Court.
Plaintiffs insisted that material evidence established a violation of the Consumer Protection Act by defendant, and the directed verdict should be reversed. Upon review of the evidentiary record, we conclude that the Trial Judge properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and we affirm the Trial Court's Judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/shroutr_031411.pdf
August 27, 2010
Court reviews directed verdict order in a case about a leaky building
E & J CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. LIBERTY BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. August 27, 2010)
E & J Construction Company ("Plaintiff") purchased a metal building from Liberty Building Systems, Inc. ("Defendant"). The metal building was purchased by Plaintiff for one of its customers, Camel Manufacturing Company ("Camel"). Plaintiff constructed the metal building for Camel and connected it to an existing building. Almost from the outset, there was a problem with leaking. Plaintiff sued Defendant raising various claims including, among others, breach of contract. After the Trial Court granted Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the case proceeded to trial on the few remaining claims. At the conclusion of Plaintiff's proof, the Trial Court granted Defendant's motion for directed verdict. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse the grant of a directed verdict on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim and remand for further proceedings. The judgment of the Trial Court otherwise is affirmed.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/ejconstruction_082710.pdf
E & J Construction Company ("Plaintiff") purchased a metal building from Liberty Building Systems, Inc. ("Defendant"). The metal building was purchased by Plaintiff for one of its customers, Camel Manufacturing Company ("Camel"). Plaintiff constructed the metal building for Camel and connected it to an existing building. Almost from the outset, there was a problem with leaking. Plaintiff sued Defendant raising various claims including, among others, breach of contract. After the Trial Court granted Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the case proceeded to trial on the few remaining claims. At the conclusion of Plaintiff's proof, the Trial Court granted Defendant's motion for directed verdict. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse the grant of a directed verdict on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim and remand for further proceedings. The judgment of the Trial Court otherwise is affirmed.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/ejconstruction_082710.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)