Skip to main content

David C. Jayne v. Bass Annie Cosmetic Boat Repair

Tenn. Ct. App.September 11, 2017No. W2016-02012-COA-R3-CV
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Excerpt

David C. Jayne ("Jayne") appeals the trial court's entry of a judgment against him for breach of contract for failure to pay Bass Annie Cosmetic Boat Repair ("Bass Annie") for repairs made to his boat. Jayne entered into a contract with Bass Annie for the repair of his damaged boat. Before the agreed-upon repairs were completed, Jayne went to Bass Annie to check on the boat. After inspecting the boat, Jayne instructed Bass Annie to stop the repairs and return the boat to him. An argument ensued, and Jayne alleges he was assaulted by a Bass Annie employee. Both parties filed claims in the general sessions court which were subsequently appealed to circuit court. Following a de novo trial in the circuit court, the trial court dismissed Jayne's claims and awarded Bass Annie damages for breach of contract for the work completed on the boat. Jayne appeals. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a dispute between David Jayne and Bass Annie Cosmetic Boat Repair over an incomplete boat repair contract. Jayne hired the company to fix his damaged boat, but before the work was finished, he visited to check on the progress. After inspecting his boat, Jayne told the company to stop working and return his boat to him. This led to an argument between the parties. A lower court initially ruled against Jayne, finding that he had breached his contract by failing to pay Bass Annie for the repair work. However, Jayne appealed this decision to a higher court. The appeals court decided to "remand" the case, meaning they sent it back to the lower court for further proceedings. This suggests the appeals court found issues with how the original case was handled and wanted it reconsidered. For workers, this case highlights the importance of understanding contract terms before entering agreements with service providers. It also shows that when disputes arise over incomplete work or unsatisfactory service, the legal outcome can be complex. Workers should document any concerns about service quality and understand their rights to stop work while still meeting their contractual obligations for services already provided.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.