Brian Weiford, D/B/A Elite Cable Television v. Fields Development Co., Inc., D/B/A Deerfield Resort

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedMarch 4, 1996
Docket03A01-9510-CV-00367
StatusPublished

This text of Brian Weiford, D/B/A Elite Cable Television v. Fields Development Co., Inc., D/B/A Deerfield Resort (Brian Weiford, D/B/A Elite Cable Television v. Fields Development Co., Inc., D/B/A Deerfield Resort) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brian Weiford, D/B/A Elite Cable Television v. Fields Development Co., Inc., D/B/A Deerfield Resort, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED March 4, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk BRI AN W FORD d / b/ a ELI TE CABLE ) EI CAM PBELL CI RCUI T TELEVI SI ON COM PANY, ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9510- CV- 0036 7 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. CONRAD TROUTMAN ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) FI ELDS DEVELOPM ENT CO. , I NC. , ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED d / b / a DEERFI ELD RESORT, ) ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e )

ANDREW N. HALL, W r t bur g, f or Appe l l a nt . a

J OSEPH C. COKER, J a c ks bor o, f or Appe l l e e .

O P I N I O N

M M r a y, J . c ur Thi s is an a ppe a l f r om t he j udgme nt of t he t r i al c our t

g r a n t i n g t he a ppe l l e e ' s mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt . W a f f i r m t he e

j u d g me n t of t he t r i a l c our t .

Th e a ppe l l a nt f i l e d i t s c ompl a i nt a l l e gi ng t ha t t he pa r t i e s

e nt e r e d i nt o a c a bl e t e l e vi s i on c ont r a c t on De c e mbe r 17, 19 9 1 .

Un d e r t he t e r ms of t he a gr e e me nt , t he a ppe l l a nt wa s gr a nt e d

a ut hor i t y to i ns t a l l , o pe r a t e a nd ma i nt a i n c a bl e t e l e vi s i o n

s e r vi c e s i n De e r f i e l d Re s or t whi c h wa s b e i n g de ve l ope d by t h e

a pp e l l e e . The a gr e e me nt wa s f or a n i ni t i a l pe r i od of f i f t een

ye a r s . The a gr e e me nt , howe ve r , di d not c ont a i n a pr ovi s i on a s t o

whe n t h e i ns t a l l a t i on of t he c a bl e s e r vi c e woul d be gi n. Be gi nni n g

i n J u l y 1992, t he a ppe l l e e be ga n t o c or r e s pond wi t h t he a ppe l l a n t

by l e t t e r i nqui r i ng a bout t he be gi nni ng of t he c ons t r uc t i on o r

p r o v i d i ng o f s e r vi c e s . No r e s pons e s we r e r e c e i ve d t o t he l e t t e r s .

Si xt e e n mont hs af t er e nt e r i ng i nt o t he a gr e e me nt t he r e we r e no

v i s i b l e s i gns of t he be gi nni ng of c ons t r uc t i on on t he pr oj e c t .

On M y 4, a 1993, J os e p h G. Coke r , a t t or ne y f or t he a ppe l l e e ,

s e nt a l et t er t o t he a pp e l l a nt a s ki ng t he a ppe l l a nt t o gi ve a

wr i t t e n s t a t e me nt of i nt e nt t o pe r f or m t he c ont r a c t . He f ur t he r

s t a t e d t ha t i f s uc h a s t a t e me nt wa s not f or t hc omi ng, t he a ppe l l e e

wo u l d c ons i de r t he c ont r a c t t e r mi na t e d. The r e wa s no r e s pons e a nd

t he a pp e l l e e t e r mi na t e d t h e c ont r a c t a nd e nt e r e d i nt o a c ont r a c t

wi t h a n o t he r e nt i t y. Appe l l a nt de ni e s r e c e i vi ng t he l e t t e r f r o m

2 M . Co k e r . r Thi s a ppe a r s t o be t he onl y di s put e of f a c t i nvol ve d i n

t h e c a s e i ns of a r a s we a r e a bl e t o de t e r mi ne f r om t he r e c or d. We

d o n o t de e m t hi s t o b e a ma t e r i a l f a c t unde r t he c i r c ums t a nc e s of

t hi s c a s e .

M. r W i f or d, t h e a ppe l l a nt , f i l e d hi s a f f i da vi t i n whi c h h e e

s t a t e d:

5. Tha t I h a ve ma de s ubs t a nt i a l e f f o r t s , i n a r e a s ona bl e a nd t i me l y ma nne r , t o c ompl y wi t h t he t e r ms of my c ont r a c t wi t h Fi e l ds De ve l opme nt whi c h f a c t s we r e ma de k n own t o t he de f e nda n t [ Fi e l ds De ve l opme nt ] i n r e s pons e t o i nt e r r oga t or i e s nu mbe r 11, 12, a nd ( s i c ) 14 a nd 17 a s a t t a c he d h e r e t o a nd whi c h a r e i nc or por a t e d he r e i n.

The a ppe l l a nt ' s a ns we r s t o t he i nt e r r oga t or i e s me nt i one d i n

t he a b o v e a f f i da vi t do not de mons t r a t e t h a t a ny s ubs t a nt i a l wo r k

wa s e ve r done t o c ons t r uc t t he c a bl e s e r vi c e . Fr om t he s t a t e of

t he r e c or d, whi c h we f i nd t o be s ome wha t be wi l de r i ng, we a r e una b l e

t o d i s c o ve r a ny va l i d, l egi t i m t e, a or l e g a l r e a s on a s t o why t h e

a p p e l l a nt ha d f a i l e d t o pe r f or m.

I n M Cl a i n v. Ki mbr ough Cons t . Co . , 806 S. W 2d 194 ( Te nn. Ap p . c .

1 9 9 0 ) t hi s c our t s t a t e d: " . . . we ha ve r e qui r e d c ont r a c t i ng pa r t i e s

t o d e a l wi t h e a c h ot he r f a i r l y a nd i n good f a i t h, e ve n t hough t h e s e

d u t i e s we r e not e xpl i c i t l y e mbodi e d i n t he i r c ont r a c t . W l l i a ms v. i

M r e mo n t a Cor p. , 776 S. W 2 d . 78, 81 ( Te nn. Ct . App. 1988) ; TSC

I n d u s . , I nc . v . Toml i n, 743 S. W 2d 169, 173 ( Te nn. Ct . App. 198 7 ) ; .

3 Co v i n g t on v. Robi ns on, 723 S. W 2d 643, 645 ( Te nn. Ct . App. 198 6 ) . .

W h a v e a l s o he l d t he e xt e nt of c ont r a c t ua l obl i ga t i ons s houl d b e e

t e mp e r e d by a ' r e a s ona bl e ne s s ' s t a nda r d. " Moor e v. Moor e , 603

S. W 2 d 736, 739 ( Te nn. Ct . App. 1980) . .

The r ul e i s we l l e s t a bl i s he d t ha t whe n no de f i ni t e t i me f or p e r f or ma nc e of a c ont r a c t i s s pe c i f i e d, a s i t wa s n ot i n t hi s c a s e by e i t he r pa r t y t he l a w wi l l i mpl y a r e a s ona bl e t i me unde r t he c i r c ums t a nc e s i n c ont e mpl a - t i on by bot h pa r t i e s a t t he t i me of f or ma t i on of t he c ont r a c t . Uni f or m Sa l e s Ac t , Se c t i on 43( 2) , Code 1932, § 7 2 36( 2) ; Thomps on v. W oodr uf f , 47 Te nn. 401; W l dbe r g Box i Co. v. Da r by , 143 Te nn. 73, 223 S. W 855; 46 Am. J ur . 341, . Se c t i ons 164 a nd 165; M mphi s Fur ni t ur e M g. Co. v. e f W mys s , 6 Ci r . , 2 F. 2d 428, 431. e

Ca l c a s i e u Pa pe r Co. I nc . , v. M mphi s Pa pe r e Co. , 222 S. W 2d 6 1 7 . ( Te n n . App. 1949) .

W a r e pe r s ua de d by a ppl yi ng t he " good f a i t h" a nd " r e a s ona bl e - e

ne s s " s t a nda r d to t he unc ont r ove r t e d f act s in t hi s cas e, t he

a pp e l l a nt ma t e r i a l l y b r e a c he d t he c ont r a c t by f a i l i ng t o be gi n t h e

p e r f or ma nc e o f t he c ont r a c t wi t hi n a r e a s ona bl e t i me . Fur t he r , we

f i nd t ha t t he f a i l ur e t o r e s pond t o t he a ppe l l e e ' s i nqui r i e s o r

c o r r e s p ond wi t h t he a ppe l l e e gi ve s r i s e t o a n i nf e r e nc e t ha t t h e

a pp e l l a nt wa s not de a l i ng i n good f a i t h. W a r e of t he opi n i o n e

t ha t t h e a ppe l l a nt br e a c he d t he c ove na nt of good f a i t h a nd f a i r

de a l i ng i mpl i c i t in e ve r y c ont r a c t a nd t he r e by br e a c he d t he

c on t r a c t in que s t i on . He , be i ng t he br e a c hi ng pa r t y, c a nnot

ma i nt a i n t hi s a c t i on a nd t he a ppe l l e e i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgme nt a s a

ma t t e r of l a w.

4 I n r e a c hi ng our c onc l us i on, we ha ve be e n gui de d by Ca r ve l l v.

Bo t t oms , 900 S. W 2d 23 ( Te nn. 1995) whe r e i n i t i s s a i d: .

The s t a nda r ds go ve r ni ng a n a ppe l l a t e c our t ' s r e vi e w o f a t r i a l c our t ' s a c t i on on a mot i on f or s umma r y j u dgme nt a r e we l l s e t t l e d. Si nc e our i nqui r y i nvol ve s p u r e l y a que s t i on of l a w, no pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s a t t a c he s t o t he t r i a l c our t ' s j udgme nt , a nd our t a s k i s c o nf i ne d t o r e vi e wi ng t he r e c or d t o de t e r mi ne whe t he r t he r e qui r e me nt s of Te nn. R. Ci v. P. 56 ha ve be e n me t . Cowde n v . Sovr a n Ba nk/ Ce nt r a l Sout h , 816 S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Covington v. Robinson
723 S.W.2d 643 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1986)
McClain v. Kimbrough Const. Co., Inc.
806 S.W.2d 194 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1990)
Cowden v. Sovran Bank/Central South
816 S.W.2d 741 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)
Anderson v. Standard Register Co.
857 S.W.2d 555 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1993)
Carvell v. Bottoms
900 S.W.2d 23 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1995)
TSC Industries, Inc. v. Tomlin
743 S.W.2d 169 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1987)
Smith v. Fentress Coal & Coke Co.
222 S.W.2d 3 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brian Weiford, D/B/A Elite Cable Television v. Fields Development Co., Inc., D/B/A Deerfield Resort, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-weiford-dba-elite-cable-television-v-fields--tennctapp-1996.