Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that statute of frauds did not apply to fraudulent misrepresentation claim
• noting that an injured party has a duty to exercise reasonable care in mitigating damages
• stating that evidence presented of the value of the house at the time of trial does not constitute the correct measure of damages under the benefit of the bargain rule
• explaining that for the benefit of the bargain rule, “[t]he measure of damages and the fixing of the value of the property are to be determined as of the time of the transaction”
• quoted with approval by Rogers v. Stafford, 03A01-9410-CH-00372, 1995 WL 103680, at (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 1995)
• “The availability of a legal defense is not a ‘vested right’ within the purview of Anderson.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).