Breach of Contract Cases

summary judgment, at-will employment, promissory estoppel, governmental function, implied contract, specific representation, discharge in violation of public policy, civil service, loss of consortium

CONTRACTS – LANDLORD-TENANT: The trial court's judgment in favor of a commercial building owner against its tenant was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the tenant breached the lease by failing to transfer a liquor permit to the owner at the termination of the parties' lease as required under the lease's clear and unambiguous terms. The trial court did not err by concluding that a contract was not unconscionable where the party asserting unconscionability of the contract failed to prove that the contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

Court of Claims' determination that the University breached its agreement with appellee was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the Court of Claims made an express determination that appellee's witnesses were more credible and persuasive than the University's witnesses and the evidence, though conflicting, supported a finding that many of the delays in construction were attributable to the construction manager, project architect, and other prime contractors. The Court of Claims' determination that the University breached the takeover agreement with appellee's Surety was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the undisputed evidence showed that the University never released any of the remaining contract funds to the Surety to pay for work completed by the Surety's subcontractor. Court of Claims did not err when it awarded damages to appellee for a breach of the takeover agreement where appellee had taken an assignment from the Surety of the Surety's right to the remaining contract funds held by the University. The University failed to demonstrate, with reference to the record, that the award of damages to appellee included compensation for work appellee did not complete. Having correctly determined the University breached both the agreement with appellee and the takeover agreement with the Surety, the Court of Claims did not err by denying contractual and statutory damages to the University as compensation for delays to project completion. Judgment affirmed.

The plaintiff, a former tenured schoolteacher, sued the Williamson County Board of Education and three administrators alleging that she was forced to resign after the defendants "bullied, stalked, intimidated, and defamed" her during the 2015–2016 school year. She asserted claims for wrongful termination, breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed all of the claims asserted in the original complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint to revise and restate her claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following discovery, the court summarily dismissed the two remaining claims as asserted in the amended complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) dismissal of her wrongful termination and negligence claims, and the summary dismissal of her claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm the trial court's determination the plaintiff's negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are barred by the Governmental Tort Liability Act and Teachers' Tenure Act, respectively. We have also determined that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of a compensable injury in her claim for breach of contract. As for the plaintiff's claim of wrongful termination, we respectfully disagree with the trial court's determination that the doctrine of constructive discharge is inapplicable to wrongful termination claims under the Teachers' Tenure Act. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful termination claim and remand this claim for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Summary judgment res judicata federal court R.C. 4112.02 statute of limitations retaliation breach of contract R.C. 4117.02 State Employee Relations Board. Trial court properly awarded transit authority and union summary judgment where plaintiff's discrimination claims were previously rejected in federal court, retaliation and breach of contract claims were barred by the statute of limitations, claims for breach of rights set forth in the collective bargaining agreement were never arbitrated, were not filed with the State Employment Relations Board, and were also outside the statute of limitations.