Eddings v. Sears Roebuck Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Guesthouse Int. Franchise Syst. v. Br. A. Prop

    Case No. 3:07-0814 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 5, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    (Docket No. 89 at 5.) Under Tennessee law, an allegation of promissory fraud is not sustainable based on the simple showing that a promise of future action was not performed. Eddings v. Sears Roebuck Co., 2002 WL 1592540, *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. July 19, 2002). Rather, the party alleging promissory fraud must put forth some evidence, beyond mere speculation, to show that the promise was made without the intent to perform.

  2. Kroger v. Legalbill.com

    436 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 11 times
    Recognizing that because pro se plaintiff was a lawyer, allegations raised for the first time in his opposition were not entitled to a greater degree of leniency

    More recently, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has required that "direct proof" is necessary to show a lack of intention, and circumstantial evidence will no longer suffice. Eddings v. Sears Roebuck Co, 2002 WL 1592540, at *6 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). Promissory fraud is not a separate cause of action under Tennessee law, as defendant suggests in its reply brief ( see Def.'s Reply at 20-21).