IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE
_______________________________________________
NEW LIFE CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Davidson Circuit #93C-1650
Vs. C.A. No. 01A01-9505-CV-00223
THOMAS NELSON, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________________
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY
THE HONORABLE BARBARA N. HAYNES, JUDGE
Michael L. Dagley, David A. French of Farris,
Warfield & Kanaday in Nashville
For Appellant
Jon D. Ross, A. Scott Ross of Neal & Harwell
in Nashville
For Appellee
REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED
Opinion filed:
FILED
February 7, 1996
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
W. FRANK CRAWFORD,
PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.
CONCUR:
ALAN E. HIGHERS, JUDGE
WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS, SENIOR JUDGE
Plaintiff, New Life Corporation of America (New Life), appeals from the
order of the trial court which granted summary judgment to defendant, Thomas
Nelson, Inc. (Nelson).
New Life is a Tennessee not-for-profit corporation which was originally
founded in 1979 as World Bible Society of America (World Bible). Norvell Olive,
World Bible's founder, developed a successful merchandising program for the
sale of audio and video cassettes emphasizing religious themes. Apparently by
1986 or 1987, Olive was interested in selling the business, and in 1988, Nelson
made an offer of $7,000,000.00 to purchase the business. This offer was rejected,
and Olive arranged for the sale of the company to Jordan Industries for
$7,850,000.00. However, the transaction for the sale was not completed.
Subsequently, in 1991, Nelson again offered to purchase the business. The offer
was accepted, and Nelson purchased all of the assets of World Bible for
$6,150,000.00. The terms of the sale are embodied in an "Asset Purchase
Agreement" dated October 1, 1991. Following the sale of the assets, World
Bible's name was changed by charter amendment to New Life Corporation of
America.
In June, 1993, New Life filed a complaint against Nelson seeking
compensatory damages in the amount of $6,100,000.00 and punitive damages
in the amount of $25,000,000.00. The complaint avers that World Bible, through
a division known as Silver Bells, had developed its business of selling Christmas
music cassette tapes to the extent that annual sales exceeded $8,000,000.00 by
1985. The complaint also avers that the success of the business was largely a
result of plaintiff's development of "highly valuable research, development and
marketing data and techniques, and other confidential business assets including
2
without limitation, customer lists, supplier lists, business plans, marketing
strategies, customer preference data, pricing data (both current and historical),
product cost data, and profit and overhead information."
Plaintiff alleges that in 1988 and 1989, Harry Lee Dickey was its president
and chief operating officer and was responsible for the day to day conduct of
the business. Dickey had full access to all information concerning every aspect
of the business, and plaintiff alleges that in February of 1989, a representative of
Nelson contacted Dickey about starting a division to compete with World Bible.
The complaint alleges that during the period of February through May of 1989,
Dickey met with representatives of Nelson and at the request of Nelson
prepared marketing plans and financial projections for Nelson to use in its
business as a competitor with World Bible. Dickey prepared the plans for Nelson
while he was World Bible's employee and in the preparation used the marketing
and financial information developed by World Bible for the conduct of its
business. The complaint further alleges that Nelson's representative told Dickey
that one of Nelson's objectives in obtaining the plans and projections was to
drive World Bible out of business or to injure World Bible to such an extent that
it could be purchased for a very low price. In May, 1989, Nelson and Dickey
entered into an employment agreement, and Dickey submitted his resignation
to World Bible on or about June 1, 1989, to terminate his employment effective
June 30, 1989. The complaint further alleges that Dickey assembled plaintiff's
confidential information while employed by plaintiff and then took that
information with him to Nelson, and that all of Dickey's acts were performed at
the request and encouragement of Nelson. The complaint avers that Dickey
breached his fiduciary duties as an officer and employee of the plaintiff.
The complaint further avers that because of the wrongful activities of
3
Nelson, World Bible's business suffered during the period of July, 1989, through
September, 1991, and that in October, 1991, World Bible agreed to sell its assets
to Nelson at a greatly deflated price. The complaint avers that World Bible
learned of Nelson's activities in December, 1992, long after the sale of its assets
to Nelson.
The complaint sets out six counts, but only Counts I, II, and V are involved
in this appeal. In Count I, World Bible alleges that Nelson's inducement of
Dickey to perform work for the benefit of Nelson while he was employed by
World Bible constituted an inducement or procurement of the breach of
Dickey's contract of employment under the common law and also violated
T.C.A. § 47-50-109 (1995). Count II alleges that Nelson's actions constituted
interference with existing business relations under the common law of
Tennessee. Count V avers that plaintiff is a consumer, and that Nelson's activities
violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, T.C.A. § 47-18-101, et seq.
(1995).
Nelson's answer denies the material allegations of the complaint and
avers that plaintiff has no standing to bring this action because any claim or
cause of action that plaintiff had was transferred and sold to Nelson by virtue
of the asset purchase agreement.
The trial court granted Nelson summary judgment on Counts I, II, and V,
but denied Nelson's motion as to the remaining counts. After plaintiff's
application for interlocutory appeal was denied by this Court, plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the remaining counts of the complaint and appealed to this Court
pursuant to Rule 3, T.R.A.P. Plaintiff's only issue for review is whether the trial court
erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on Counts I, II, and V.
Nelson, in its brief, presents the issue of whether this Court has jurisdiction
4
to hear the case because there was no final order entered in the trial court.
Nelson filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the same ground, and on August
7, 1995, this Court, in denying the motion to dismiss, stated:
Thomas Nelson asserts that New Life cannot create a
right to appeal an interlocutory order by voluntarily
dismissing its remaining claims. This court disagrees. A
party is entitled to an appeal as of right once the trial
court has entered a final order that resolves all the
claims between all the parties. Tenn.R.App.P. 3 (a).
The voluntary dismissal of a claim resolves that claim
for the purposes of Tenn.R.App.P. 3. Consequently, the
order dismissing New Life's remaining claims resolved
all the remaining issues between the parties and New
Life was entitled to an appeal as of right.
The order of this Court effectively disposes of appellee's issue, and we will
not consider it further.
A trial court should grant a motion for summary judgment only if the
movant demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tenn.R.Civ.P. 56.03.
Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993); Dunn v. Hackett, 833 S.W.2d 78, 80
(Tenn. App. 1992). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden
of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Byrd, 847 S.W.2d
at 210. When a motion for summary judgment is made, the Court must consider
the motion in the same manner as a motion for directed verdict made at the
close of plaintiff's proof. That is, "the Court must take the strongest legitimate
view of the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, allow all reasonable
inferences in favor of that party, and discard all countervailing evidence." Id.
at 210-11. In Byrd, the Tennessee Supreme Court stated:
Once it is shown by the moving party that there is no
genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party
must then demonstrate, by affidavits or discovery
materials, that there is a genuine, material fact dispute
to warrant a trial [citations omitted]. In this regard,
Rule 56.05 provides that the nonmoving party cannot
5
simply rely upon his pleadings but must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of
material fact for trial.
Id. at 211. (Emphasis in original).
Nelson first asserts that plaintiff cannot maintain this action, because
plaintiff sold all of its assets to Nelson, including the alleged causes of action
involved in this case. The Asset Purchase Agreement between the parties
provides for the sale of:
[A]ll of Sellers' assets, wherever located (collectively,
subject only to such specified exclusions, the "Assets"),
including but not limited to the following: all of Sellers'
respective rights, properties, cash, assets, contracts
and businesses of every kind, character and
description, whether tangible or intangible, whether
real, personal or mixed, whether accrued, contingent
or otherwise, wherever located, including without
limitation, all cash, accounts receivable, inventories,
fixed assets, machinery and equipment, furniture,
furnishings and fixtures, prepaid expenses, deposits
and deferred charges, contract rights, copyrights,
master recordings, trademarks, service marks, trade
names, and all claims and causes of actions brought
(or subject to being brought) by either Seller relating to
any of the foregoing, including claims and actions for
past infringement.
New Life asserts that its claim against Nelson was unknown at the time the
assets were sold, and that there was no intent to include any such claim in the
agreement. New Life further asserts that the plain language of the agreement
does not include unknown claims, and that a separate provision of the Asset
Purchase Agreement, Paragraph 4.13,1 which specifically requires disclosure of
1
Paragraph 4.13 of the agreement provides:
4.13. Litigation. Except as set forth in Schedule 4.13,
there are no claims, actions, suits, proceedings or
investigations pending or threatened by or against, or
otherwise affecting Seller at law or in equity or before
or by any federal, state, municipal or other
governmental department, commission, board,
agency, instrumentality or authority. Seller does not
6
all claims and suits by or against plaintiff, does not encompass the claim
involved in this case.
The agreement specifically transfers claims "brought or subject to being
brought" which implicitly denotes the known existence of the claims. There is no
provision to transfer unknown claims, and it is uncontroverted from the proof
before the Court that plaintiff did not know of the claim at the time the Asset
Purchase Agreement was signed. Moreover, Nelson specifically denies that it
engaged in any wrongful conduct and thus denies the existence of the claim.
Under these circumstances it appears uncontroverted that there was no intent
on the part of either party to include in the transfer of assets a claim of plaintiff
against Nelson.
We also note that the transfer of an obligee's claim(s) to an obligor is, in
effect, a release by the obligee of its claims against the obligor. The transfer by
the obligee of claims against the obligor vests in the obligor all of the obligee's
rights in these claims, thus totally eliminating the obligee's ability to further pursue
any action against the obligor. This is the same effect created by a release.
In Richland Country Club v. CRC Equities, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. App.
1991), this Court said:
First, we note that a release is a contract and rules
of construction applied to contracts are used in
construing a release. Jackson v. Miller, 776 S.W.2d 115
(Tenn. App. 1989). The cardinal rule is to ascertain the
intention of the parties. Bob Pearsall Motors, Inc. v.
Regal Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 521 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn.
1975). A general release covers all claims between
know or have any reason to know of any such claim,
action, suit, proceeding or investigation. No claim,
action, suit, proceeding or investigation set forth in
Schedule 4.13, could, if adversely decided, have a
material adverse effect on the condition (financial or
otherwise), assets, liabilities, earnings, prospects or
business of Seller.
7
the parties which are in existence and within their
contemplation. Cross v. Earls, 517 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn.
1974). In Jackson, the court adopted these additional
propositions of law in seeking to discover the effect of
a release:
In interpreting a release to determine
whether a particular claim has been
discharged, the primary rule of
construction is that the intention of the
parties shall govern, and this intention is to
be determined with a consideration of
what was within the contemplation of the
parties when the release was executed,
which in turn is to be resolved in the light
of all of the surrounding facts and
circumstances under which the parties
acted. (Citing 66 Am.Jur.2d Release § 30
(1973).
Claims in tort which have not matured or
were not known to the parties when they
executed their release and which they
did not intend to affect when the
settlement was made are not discharged
by a release. (Citing 66 Am.Jur.2d
Release § 33 (1973)).
A release ordinarily covers all such
matters as may fairly be said to have
been within the contemplation of the
parties when it was given . . .
consequently a demand of which a party
was ignorant when the release was given
is not as a rule . . . embraced therein . . .
(Citing 76 C.J.S. Release § 52 (1952)).
832 S.W.2d at 557 (quoting Jackson v. Miller, 776 S.W.2d 115, 118 (Tenn. App.
1989)).
Nelson asserts that Olive's affidavit in which he states that the claim at
issue was unknown and was not intended to be included in the agreement,
violates the parole evidence rule and should not be considered. Nelson argues
that the language of the agreement transfers all of the assets and all claims and
causes of actions of any nature, and that the affidavit would have the effect of
varying the terms of the agreement.
8
A contract must be construed with reference to the situation of the
parties, the business to which the contract relates, and the subject matter as it
appears from the words used. Petty v. Sloan, 197 Tenn. 630, 277 S.W.2d 355, 359
(1955).
Olive's affidavit clearly shows that the claim against Nelson was unknown,
and in the absence of language in the agreement that includes unknown
claims, Olive's affidavit stating that the claim was not intended to be a part of
the agreement does not have the effect of varying terms of the written
agreement. Moreover, considering the situation of the parties, it is not the usual
and customary practice in this type of arrangement for an obligee to assign to
an obligor its claims against that obligor. Considering all of the factors, our
interpretation of the agreement is that it does not include any claim or cause
of action that plaintiff has against defendant.
Nelson next asserts that plaintiff must either disaffirm the Asset Purchase
Agreement and tender the consideration therefor or abide by the agreement.
Nelson argues that plaintiff's retention of the benefits of the contract has
operated to affirm the agreement and waive the claims presented in the instant
case.
We do not disagree with the general proposition asserted by Nelson that
a party may not affirm a contract by retaining its benefits and at the same time
assert that the contract is void because it was induced by fraud. However, that
is not the situation in the case at hand. In this case, plaintiff contends that
defendant committed acts that seriously damaged the value of plaintiff's
business, and that not knowing the cause of the devaluation of its business,
plaintiff sold the business to defendant. Subsequently, plaintiff learned that
defendant had committed acts that damaged the value of the business, and
9
then brought suit against defendant to obtain compensation for these wrongful
acts. There is no claim that the contract was induced by fraud; rather the claim
is that defendant committed tortious acts that caused damage to plaintiff's
business. Under this scenario, plaintiff need not disaffirm the contract for the sale
of its business in order to recover damages for defendant's alleged wrongful
acts, because the sale of the business is separate and distinct from the acts
committed by defendant.
In the case at bar, Dickey's deposition establishes that he was plaintiff's
employee, that he was solicited by defendant's representative to provide
information concerning his employer's business, that defendant's representative
indicated that he wanted to injure or damage plaintiff's business to the extent
that it could be profitably purchased by defendant, and that pursuant to
defendant's solicitation, Dickey provided the information while he was in the
employ of plaintiff. The deposition further indicates that Nelson's representative
actively sought Dickey's services, and that Dickey was enticed by defendant to
leave his employment with plaintiff. The record also indicates that plaintiff
released its former employee, Harry Dickey, from any and all claims plaintiff may
have against Dickey in connection with his activity on behalf of Nelson, and
Nelson asserts that this release operates as a release of these claims against
Nelson. We disagree. This Court considered the same argument in TSC
Industries, Inc. v. Tomlin, 743 S.W.2d 169 (Tenn. App. 1987) and held that a
compromise settlement of a breach of contract action between the injured
party and the breaching party does not bar an action for an inducement of the
breach of that contract against a third party.
Count I of plaintiff's complaint alleges a cause of action under both the
common law and under T.C.A. § 47-50-109 (1995) for inducement to breach a
10
contract. T.C.A. § 47-50-109 provides:
47-50-109. Procurement of breach of contracts
unlawful - Damages. - It is unlawful for any person, by
inducement, persuasion, misrepresentation, or other
means, to induce or procure the breach or violation,
refusal or failure to perform any lawful contract by any
party thereto; and, in every case where a breach or
violation of such contract is so procured, the person so
procuring or inducing the same shall be liable in treble
the amount of damages resulting from or incident to
the breach of the contract. The party injured by such
breach may bring suit for the breach and for such
damages.
The statute is declaratory of the common law except as to the amount of
damages that may be recovered against a wrongdoer. Emmco Ins. Co. v.
Beacon Mut. Indem. Co., 204 Tenn. 540, 322 S.W.2d 226, 231 (1959). The
elements of a cause of action for procurement of the breach of a contract are:
there must be a legal contract; the wrongdoer must have knowledge of the
existence of the contract; there must be an intention to induce its breach; the
wrongdoer must have acted maliciously; there must be a breach of the
contract; the act complained of must be the proximate cause of the breach of
the contract; and, there must have been damages resulting from the breach
of the contract. Campbell v. Matlock, 749 S.W.2d 748, 751 (Tenn. App. 1987);
Dynamic Motel Management, Inc. v. Erwin, 528 S.W.2d 819, 822 (Tenn. App.
1975).
The evidence in the record at this stage of the proceedings establishes
that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the above elements
are satisfied in this case. Dickey had a contract of employment with World Bible
(New Life), and although the contract was terminable at will, an action can still
be maintained for procurement of the breach of the contract. Dorsett Carpet
Mills, Inc. v. Whitt Tile & Marble Distrib. Co., 1986 WL 622 (Tenn. App. W.S. Jan. 2,
1986) permission to appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider appropriate
11
measure of damages, 734 S.W.2d 322 (Tenn. 1987). Olive's affidavit and Dickey's
deposition state that Nelson knew of the contract, that Nelson intended to
induce its breach, that Nelson acted maliciously, that Nelson's actions caused
the contract to be breached, and that World Bible (New Life) was damaged as
a result of the breach. Plaintiff has come forward with proof which establishes
that there are genuine issues of material fact as to Count I, and therefore,
summary judgment was not appropriate.
In Count II, plaintiff alleges that defendant's actions constituted an
intentional interference with a business relationship. In Kan Const. & Cleaning
Corp. v. Tatum, No. 01A01-9304-CV-00150, 1993 WL 434741, (Tenn. App. W.S. Oct.
27, 1993) the Court stated:
The elements of the tort of interference with business
relations are also set out in 45 Am.Jur.2d Interference
50 (1969).
The basic elements which establish a
prima facie tortious interference with a
business relationship are the existence of
a valid business relation (not necessarily
evidenced by an enforceable contract)
or expectancy; knowledge of the
relationship or expectancy on the part of
the interferer; an intentional interference
inducing or causing a breach or
termination of the relationship or
expectancy; and resultant damage to
the party whose relationship or
expectancy has been disrupted.
Id. at 4.
Olive's affidavit and Dickey's deposition establish the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nelson's contacts with plaintiff's
employee (Dickey) constituted an interference with plaintiff's business
relationship with Dickey. Therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate on
Count II.
12
In Count V, plaintiff seeks recovery pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act, T.C.A. § 47-18-101, et seq., (1995). Plaintiff asserts that it was
injured by "unfair and deceptive practices" and therefore should be allowed
recovery under the Act. Plaintiff primarily relies upon Smith Corona Corp. v.
Pelikan, Inc., 784 F.Supp. 452 (M.D. Tenn. 1992), which held that corporations
may recover under the Act, and that recovery under the Act is not restricted to
"consumers." The decision in Smith Corona is not binding authority on this Court,
and we see no need to analyze the case in view of the language of the
Consumer Protection Act and the peculiar facts of the case before us. T.C.A.
§ 47-18-102 provides:
47-18-102. Purposes. - The provisions of this part shall
be liberally construed to promote the following
policies:
(1) To simplify, clarify, and modernize state law
governing the protection of the consuming public and
to conform these laws with existing consumer
protection policies;
(2) To protect consumers and legitimate business
enterprises from those who engage in unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any
trade or commerce in part or wholly within this state;
(3) To encourage and promote the development of
fair consumer practices;
(4) To declare and to provide for civil legal means for
maintaining ethical standards of dealing between
persons engaged in business and the consuming
public to the end that good faith dealings between
buyers and sellers at all levels of commerce be had in
this state; and
(5) To promote statewide consumer education.
T.C.A. § 47-18-103 (1995) provides in pertinent part:
47-18-103. Definitions. - As used in this part, unless the
context otherwise requires:
* * *
13
(9) "Trade," "commerce," or "consumer transaction"
means the advertising, offering for sale, lease or rental,
or distribution of any goods, services, or property,
tangible or intangible, real, personal, or mixed, and
other articles, commodities, or things of value
wherever situated.
The gravamen of plaintiff's action in the case before us is not that the
contract for the sale of its assets was infected with unfair or deceptive acts or
practices. On the contrary, plaintiff explicitly argues that the sales contract is
not involved in this litigation and plaintiff has not sought to disaffirm the contract
for the sale of its assets. The plaintiff alleges in its complaint that defendant
willfully and maliciously damaged plaintiff's business. The complaint does not,
however, allege that such action is in connection with any "sale, lease, or
rental, or distribution of any goods, services, or property . . . ." Under the
allegations of this complaint, and the facts in the record, there is simply nothing
to constitute "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade
or commerce," and therefore the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment on this count of the
complaint.
In summary, the order of the trial court granting summary judgment as to
Counts I and II of the complaint is reversed, and the order granting summary
judgment as to Count V is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for
such further proceedings as may be necessary. Costs of the appeal are
assessed against appellee.
____________________________________
W. FRANK CRAWFORD,
PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.
CONCUR:
_________________________________
ALAN E. HIGHERS, JUDGE
14
_________________________________
WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS,
SENIOR JUDGE
15