Moore v. Berry

2 Citing cases

  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.

  2. Custom AG Service, Inc. v. Watts

    No. 32010-3-III (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2014)

    "'Conditions prescribed by the seller or owner and announced at the time and place of the auction are binding on the purchaser whether or not he knew or heard of them."' Id. (quoting Moore v. Berry, 40 Tenn.App. 1, 288 S.W.2d 465, 468 (1955); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts ยง 28 cmt e (1981). The Restatement explains: