Bill Jennings v. Lawler-Wood, Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03A01-9803-CV-00111

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; June 2, 1999; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the Court of Appeals at Knoxville, a case involving plaintiff Bill Jennings and defendant Lawler Wood, Inc. concerns a service contract for washers and dryers at Maple Oak apartments. Jennings alleged a breach of contract by Lawler Wood, seeking damages. The Trial Court dismissed Jennings' suit, finding him in breach of contract himself. Jennings appealed, questioning whether the Court erred in granting judgment to Lawler Wood and misinterpreting the contract. The parties had previously entered into a 10-year contract, which Jennings claimed was renewed under similar terms for an additional 8 years, while Lawler Wood disputed this renewal. The February 1989 contract included provisions for maintenance and cancellation rights if services were deemed unacceptable. Following difficulties with maintenance, Lawler Wood informed Jennings in a February 1997 letter that the contract would not be renewed.

The Trial Court found in favor of the Defendant, determining that the contract, identified as Exhibit 1, had been fulfilled by the Defendant. The central issue was whether a breach occurred concerning the extension or renewal of the contract. Supporting documentation for the contract renewal was presented in Exhibit 2, where Mr. Peterson, representing the Defendant, assured Mr. Jennings, the Plaintiff, that the contract would be renewed if Mr. Jennings installed a compliant washer and dryer. Mr. Jennings completed the installation; however, unresolved issues persisted, particularly recurring problems with leaking washing machines.

The contract stipulated a 12-hour service window, allowing tenants to report machine malfunctions. The Court noted that leaks requiring immediate attention could not wait for this timeframe. Evidence indicated that issues with leaking continued for several days, even after a notification was issued on November 11 (Exhibit 4). There was no effective resolution from the Defendant despite attempts to contact them via an additional phone number provided. The contract did not necessitate a 30-day notice for renewal failure; rather, it allowed the Plaintiff a 30-day period to remedy any issues after notification, which remained unaddressed.

The Court concluded that there were adequate grounds for the Defendant to declare a breach of contract, thus relieving them from the obligation to renew. The evidence did not favor the Plaintiff's position against these findings. Mr. Jennings argued for a 30-day remedy period per the contract; however, the Court did not accept that a standard waiting period applied in emergency situations, such as plumbing failures. Mr. Jennings acknowledged this distinction during cross-examination.

An emergency situation was identified involving a leaking washer that caused water to overflow onto the floor below, necessitating prompt attention from the owner, maintainer, and service personnel of the affected machines. It was confirmed that such a leak required immediate action, and although there may have been previous instances of leakage, none were documented before October 1997. The Trial Court found that Mr. Jennings had breached his contract, justifying Lawler Wood's decision to rescind its offer to renew the contract. Consequently, the Trial Court's judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded for the collection of costs, which were assessed against Mr. Jennings and his surety, Houston M. Goddard. The judgment was concurred by the presiding judges, except for Don T. McMurray, who did not participate.