February 26, 2009

Plaintiffs should pursue remedies against parties with whom they have privity before contract under implied theory

POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. EUGENE ENGLAND, CLAIBORNE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPER, INC., and WILDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., d/b/a LIFETIME HOMES (Tenn. Ct. App. February 26, 2009).

Plaintiff brought this action against defendant Claiborne Builders to recover the rental fees from a contract between plaintiff and Claiborne Builders for earth-moving equipment which Claiborne Builders used to remove soil from Wilder’s property. The Trial Judge entered Judgment against Claiborne Builders on its contract and Wilder Construction under an implied contract. Wilder has appealed. We reverse the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/powerequip_022609.pdf

“In this case, the evidence was conflicting and unsubstantiated as to whether the work performed on Wilder’s land using Power Equipment’s machinery benefitted Wilder, and based upon the Supreme Court’s holding in Paschall and our holding in Bennett, we do not have to decide if a benefit was received by Wilder. It is undisputed that England and Power Equipment had an express, written contract for the lease of the machinery and England owed Power Equipment a balance of $48,402.77 for the use of equipment pursuant to the contract and his personal guarantee. Thus, Power Equipment was required to pursue its remedy against England with whom it had privity of contract before it could pursue an alleged remedy against Wilder under a contract implied in law theory.” Id.