BERNIE CHEATHAM d/b/a UNIVERSAL BUILDERS, ET AL. v. THE FEDERAL MATERIALS COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 22, 2012)
Builder was hired to construct a commercial building, and it purchased the concrete for the building’s concrete slab from Supplier. The concrete slab developed major cracks, which led to this lawsuit between Builder and Supplier. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court found that Supplier had delivered defective concrete, and it entered judgment in favor of Builder for $60,000. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cheathamb_022212.pdf
The Tennessee Construction Law Blog is published by David Headrick of the Adams Law Firm, a full-service law firm with offices in Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee.
February 22, 2012
February 10, 2012
Court reviews whether the final payment in a Development Agreement was contingent upon satisfying certain requirements of a Partnership Agreement.
EAGLES LANDING DEVELOPMENT, LLC. v. EAGLES LANDING APARTMENTS, LP., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 2, 2012)
This is a breach of contract case. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded Appellee Developer the remaining balance due under a Development Agreement that was entered by and between Appellee and the Appellants, a partnership and its limited liability partners, for construction of an apartment complex.
Appellants contend that Appellee was not entitled to final payment because the general partner, who is not a party to this appeal, had not funded the development fees that were contemplated under a Partnership Agreement, to which Appellee was not a party. Specifically, Appellants argue that the payment under the Development Agreement is contingent upon satisfaction of the funding requirements specified in the Partnership Agreement.
We conclude that the conditions precedent under the Development Agreement were met, and that the Appellee was, therefore, entitled to its full fee under the Development Agreement. The trial court assessed judgment against the limited liability partners and the partnership. Under the Tennessee Revised Uniform Partnership Act, Appellants' status as limited partners protects them from liability for the debts of the partnership. Appellee contends that it is a third-party beneficiary under the Partnership Agreement and may, therefore, have judgment against the limited partners who were parties to that agreement. We conclude that the third-party beneficiary issue is waived and that the trial court erred in entering judgment against the limited partners. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/eagleslanding_020212.pdf
This is a breach of contract case. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded Appellee Developer the remaining balance due under a Development Agreement that was entered by and between Appellee and the Appellants, a partnership and its limited liability partners, for construction of an apartment complex.
Appellants contend that Appellee was not entitled to final payment because the general partner, who is not a party to this appeal, had not funded the development fees that were contemplated under a Partnership Agreement, to which Appellee was not a party. Specifically, Appellants argue that the payment under the Development Agreement is contingent upon satisfaction of the funding requirements specified in the Partnership Agreement.
We conclude that the conditions precedent under the Development Agreement were met, and that the Appellee was, therefore, entitled to its full fee under the Development Agreement. The trial court assessed judgment against the limited liability partners and the partnership. Under the Tennessee Revised Uniform Partnership Act, Appellants' status as limited partners protects them from liability for the debts of the partnership. Appellee contends that it is a third-party beneficiary under the Partnership Agreement and may, therefore, have judgment against the limited partners who were parties to that agreement. We conclude that the third-party beneficiary issue is waived and that the trial court erred in entering judgment against the limited partners. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/eagleslanding_020212.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)