Source: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/calvin-houghland-and-wife-josephine-houghland-plaintiffs-appellees-vs-security-alarms-services-inc-defendant-appellant
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:13:43+00:00

Document:
CALVIN HOUGHLAND and wife, JOSEPHINE HOUGHLAND, Plaintiffs-Appellees VS.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section at Nashville-1985 Tenn. App.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
statutory unfair and deceptive practice claim.
affirmed the directed verdict in favor of the security alarm company.
JUDGES: Todd, Presiding Judge, Middle Section wrote the opinion. SAMUEL L.
LEWIS, JUDGE, CONCURS, WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE, NOT PARTICIPATING.
to the dismissal of their statutory claim.
Directed Verdict at the conclusion of all of the proof in this cause.
and not as a penalty and this liability shall be complete and exclusive.
ABILITY OR FITNESS FOR USE.
indefinite duration so long as the quarterly payments were made.
the pricing for the installation of the proposed fire alarm system for Mr.
would be effective until October 1, 1979.
fact, repond (sic) to the alarms in a timely fashion.
Per our recent discussion, please find two proposal for additions to Mr.
intruder try to compromise the line.
Installation Price: One Hundred Sixty-Five Dollars ($165.00) plus tax.
creating an alarm by pressing a button from any where within the home.
Fifty Cents ($9.50) plus tax.
Installation Price: Thirty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($37.50) plus tax.
additional monthly charge increase effective upon completion.
SECURITY ALARMS & SERVICES, INC.
the performance of defendant and its equipment under said latter instrument.
separate and apart from the former, July 1, 1977, original contract.
equipment, services and charges therefor.
[*10] Fourth Edition, p. 1486.
To the same effect is Markman v. H.A. Bruntjen Co., Minn. 1957, 81 NW2d 858.
document executed on July 1, 1977.
Fraud is never presumed; it must be proved. Pipkin v. Lentz, 49 Tenn. App.
to ascertain the contents of a written [*11] instrument before signing.
Life & Acc. Ins. Co. 182 Tenn. 255, 185 SW2d 617 (1945).
representative which was an offer.
relation hereby established", and "all hazards covered by insurance".
from contract or warranty liability, McElroy v. Boise Cascade Corp., Tenn.
App. 1982, 632 SW2d 127; Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc., Tenn. App.
try to compromise the line.
appropriate law enforcement department on all burglar alarm signals . . .
received at our Central Station.
[*13] services provided in the rider.
2. The policy and practice of reporting all alarms to the police.
but did not notify defendant's office that "someone cut this line or . . .
"call" from the unit would be an alarm of a cut line.
to raise a reasonable inference of proximate cause.
of a misrepresentation which proximately caused the loss.
count. Alex v. Armstrong, 215 Tenn. 276, 385 SW2d 110 (1964); Tallent v.
Cab Co. of Nashville, 23 Tenn. App. 209, 129 SW2d 1117 (1939).
basis of a negligent mispresentation action."
reference to the page or pages of the record where such action is recorded.
evidence of such fact is recorded.
capacity of equipment or of the policy or procedure of the defendant.
Appellant's eleventh issue is found to be without merit.
another jeweler and various sales slips.
fairly good amount of information to establish value from".
is the grossest hearsay. It's just not admissible.
jewelry as much as possible. We reconstructed it from that.
A. We didn't have the weights.
A. We took our information from that appraisal.
information that we had to establish values.
their individual opinions reasonably conform to general consensus.
understandable, but it is fatal to the relevance of the testimony of Mr.
anything to do with this case.
burglary, it was error to admit the appraisal of Mr. Potts.
by Houghland as the property lost, hence this Court cannot say that Mr.
it is not fatal to plaintiffs' suit.
Hdwe. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 49 Tenn. App. 124, 351 S.W.2d 411 (1961).
description related in plaintiffs' testimony.
To the extent indicated, the twelfth issue has merit.
the Plaintiffs had read or relied upon that brochure.
admission of the evidence was reversible error.
Accordingly, no merit can be found in appellant's thirteenth issue.
loss they sustained in the August 31-September 1, 1980 burglary.
misrepresentation in the procurement of the latter, 1979 rider.
theory upon which the verdict and judgment must rest.
other relief as it considers necessary and proper.
a proceeding pursuant to § 47-18-107 or § 47-18-108.
defendant on the statutory phase of the suit was harmless error.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 47
 § 47