KANDEL v. CUTR

10 Citing cases

  1. Wright v. Wacker-Chemie AG

    No. 1:13-cv-331 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 1, 2014)   Cited 5 times
    Discussing Tennessee presumption of at-will employment

    Taylor v. UnumProvident Corp., No. 1:03-cv-1009, 2008 WL 4415601, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2008). See also Kandel v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment & Research, No. M2000-02128-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 598567, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2002) ("To establish a claim for promissory fraud, a claimant must show that, at the time the promise was made, the person making the promise had no intention to perform."). And a number of Tennessee courts have engaged in extensive analyses of a plaintiff's burden to demonstrate fraudulent intent, which hardly leaves room for Plaintiff's reading of the tort, which would only require he show recklessness.

  2. Daly v. Wacker-Chemie AG

    No. 1:13-cv-382 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 1, 2014)   Cited 5 times
    Dismissing "duplicative" fraudulent concealment claim based on "the same facts" underlying misrepresentation claim

    Taylor v. UnumProvident Corp., No. 1:03-cv-1009, 2008 WL 4415601, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2008). See also Kandel v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment & Research, No. M2000-02128-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 598567, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2002) ("To establish a claim for promissory fraud, a claimant must show that, at the time the promise was made, the person making the promise had no intention to perform."). And a number of Tennessee courts have engaged in extensive analyses of a plaintiff's burden to demonstrate fraudulent intent, which hardly leaves room for Plaintiff's reading of the tort, which would only require he show recklessness.

  3. Arch Wood Protection, Inc. v. Flamedxx, LLC

    932 F. Supp. 2d 858 (E.D. Tenn. 2013)   Cited 9 times

    ; Kandel v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment & Research, No. M2000–02128–COA–R3–CV, 2002 WL 598567, at *8 (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr. 17, 2002) (“To establish a claim for promissory fraud, a claimant must show that, at the time the promise was made, the person making the promise had no intention to perform.”).

  4. Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Marketing & Supply Co.

    823 F. Supp. 2d 786 (W.D. Tenn. 2011)   Cited 40 times
    Finding Rule 23 was satisfied with respect to issue of whether promissory estoppel was an exception to the statute of frauds, even though complaint also alleged common-law claims for breach of contract, promissory fraud, equitable estoppel, and violation of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act

    In a series of unpublished decisions, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has divided over whether a plaintiff may maintain a cause of action for promissory fraud in the absence of direct proof of the promisor's bad intent. See Kandel v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment & Research, P.C., No. M2000–02128–COA–R3–CV, 2002 WL 598567, at *8 (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr. 17, 2002) (“The Tennessee Supreme Court is unwilling to apply the doctrine ‘except in those cases where there is direct proof of a misrepresentation of actual present intention.’ ”)

  5. S.K. Services v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

    No.: 1:08-CV-158 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2008)   Cited 3 times

    But Defendant's duty to negotiate the contract in good faith would exist only if it had an "express contractual agreement to do so." Barnes Robinson Co. v. Onesource Facility Servs., 195 S.W.3d 637, 643 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2006) (citing Kandel v. Center for Urological Treatment and Research, P.C., 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 260, 2002 WL 598567 (Tenn.Ct.App. April 17, 2002)). Such a duty may not be inferred absent an express contractual agreement.

  6. Schwaiger v. Mitchell Radiology Associates

    2002 S.D. 97 (S.D. 2002)   Cited 18 times
    In Schwaiger v. Mitchell Radiology Associations, P.C., 2002 SD 97, ¶ 11, 652 N.W.2d 372, 377, we stated that "if a written contract is in direct contradiction of an oral representation, reliance on that oral representation, as a matter of law, is unjustified."

    ] In a factually similar case, a physician entered an employment contract that provided if the physician-employee worked for the employer group for one year, then the parties would negotiate for the employee to have stock-purchasing opportunities. Kandel v. Center for Urological Treatment and Research, P.C., 2002 WL 598567, *1 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). After the employee worked for one year, the parties negotiated, as agreed, but the negotiations came to an impasse.

  7. LVH, LLC v. Freeman Inv.

    No. M2020-00698-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 14, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    In Gurley v. King, this court distinguished between two types of preliminary agreements—one "where parties agree to later formalize a contract about which there has been complete agreement on all of the essential issues" and the other "where parties have committed themselves to some of the major terms, but other essential elements remain to be negotiated." Gurley, 183 S.W.3d 30, 40 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Kandel v. Ctr. for Urological Treatment & Research, P.C., No. M2000-02128-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 598567 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2002)). Although Gurley involved the first type of agreement, this court quoted a New York case stating that a preliminary agreement of the second type could give rise to "'the obligation to negotiate the open issues in good faith in an attempt to reach the alternate objective within the agreed framework.'"

  8. Noblin v. Christiansen

    No. M2005-01316-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 30, 2007)   Cited 18 times

    Farmers Merchants Bank, 664 S.W.2d at 82 (emphasis original). See Kandel Center for Urological Treatment and Research, No. M2000-02128-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 598567, at *8 (Tenn.Ct.App. April 17, 2002) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). This court in American Cable Corp. v. ACI Management Inc., No. M1997-00280-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1291265, (Tenn.Ct.App. Sept. 14, 2000) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed), discussed at length the difficulty of proving intent and held that the best gauge to determine intent, short of an admission, is to examine actions.

  9. Barnes Robinson Co. v. Onesource Facility

    195 S.W.3d 637 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 114 times
    Upholding denial of promissory estoppel claim because the reliance was unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the case

    Tennessee courts, however, have not recognized a duty to negotiate in good faith absent an express contractual agreement to do so. See Kandel v. Center for Urological Treatment and Research, P.C., No. M2000-02128-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 598567 (Tenn.Ct.App. April 17, 2002). In that matter, Dr. Kandel argued that a contract to "negotiate in good faith" is enforceable in Tennessee, and that the facts of his case supported a finding the defendants breached their duty under his employment agreement to negotiate in good faith.

  10. Gurley v. King

    183 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 43 times
    Concluding that with regard to a "preliminary" oral contract, summary judgment was inappropriate because reasonable minds could differ as to whether a contract had been created

    Davidson, 47 S.W.3d at 454. The third case from Tennessee is the opinion of this Court in Kandel v. Center for Urological Treatment and Research, P.C., No. M2000-02128-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 598567 (Tenn.Ct.App. April 17, 2002). This case contains an enlightening discussion of developments in the law following the landmark decision of a New York Federal District Court in Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. Tribune Co., 670 F.Supp. 491 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).