Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tinkham v. Beasley
Citation: Not availableDocket: M1999-02809-COA-R3-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; November 21, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed a case involving Rick Ray Tinkham and R. Jerome Beasley concerning a breach of contract for the sale of real property. The Tinkhams had contracted to sell a house to Beasley for $167,000, but Beasley failed to close the sale. To mitigate their damages, the Tinkhams auctioned the property for $155,000, resulting in a loss of $12,000. The trial court awarded the Tinkhams this amount, reflecting the difference between the contract price and the auction sale price. Judge William C. Koch, Jr. dissented, arguing that the ruling denied the vendors rightful damages, which should aim to restore them to the position they would have been in had the contract been fulfilled. He emphasized that the purpose of damages is to compensate for losses incurred due to the breach, referencing established legal principles and previous case law, specifically Springfield Tobacco Redryers Corp. v. City of Springfield, which supports the trial court's measure of damages. No issues regarding the commercial reasonableness of the Tinkhams' auction decision were raised.