Moore v. Berry

1 Citing case

  1. Pritchett v. Comas Montgomery Realty & Auction Co.

    No. M2014-00583-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2015)   Cited 4 times
    Explaining that the reliance element involves two inquiries, "whether the plaintiff actually relied on the misrepresentation and whether that reliance was reasonable"

    Conditions of a sale at auction that are announced at the auction are binding on the bidder. Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877, 881 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Moore v. Berry, 288 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955). Therefore, since there is no claim that Defendant engaged in fraud, intentional misconduct, or gross negligence, we have concluded that Defendant successfully negated the essential element that Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentation that the building was 11,556 square feet. Because Defendant negated an essential element of Plaintiff's claim, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.