Wil-Helm Agency v. Lynn
Tennessee Court of Appeals
618 S.W.2d 748 (1981)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Country singer Loretta Lynn (defendant) entered into a contract with Wil-Helm Agency (Wil-Helm) (plaintiff), in which Wil-Helm was to provide representation, career advice, and employment opportunities to Lynn in exchange for fees. Years into the contract’s term, the agency representative with whom Lynn had established a successful working relationship left and was replaced by another agent, Doyle Wilburn. Wilburn regularly consumed alcohol to excess and engaged in abusive, insulting conduct. Wilburn’s drunken behavior included several embarrassing disruptions during Lynn’s concert and television appearances. Lynn consulted with an attorney, who informed the agency that the agency had breached the contract and that Lynn was no longer bound by the contract. Wil-Helm sued Lynn for unpaid fees, alleging that Lynn had breached the contract. Lynn counterclaimed for damages from what she alleged to be the agency’s breach. The chancery court found in favor of Lynn. However, the court awarded no damages, reasoning that any fees owed to Wil-Helm were canceled out by damages to Lynn, including revenue that Lynn’s distressed emotional state prevented her from earning. Though no precise figure was given. Wil-Helm appealed. The Tennessee Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matherne, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.