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

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

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

Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided March 4, 1996·No. 03A01-9510-CV-00367·Published

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