I. Employee and Independent Contractor Distinguished
During the abbreviated survey period there were no significant or momentous decisions by Tennessee courts--state or federal--involving agency principles. Indeed the only state appellate case properly to be considered here involved the rather pedestrian question of whether a petitioner for workmen's compensation benefits was, vis-a-vis the defendant prime contractor, an employee or an independent contractor.
II. Misrepresentations of Agent
Butts v. Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc. is merely another example of the Sixth Circuit's unfortunate proclivity for writing per curiam affirmances. It is well-nigh impossible to determine whether the liability of the defendant which the court affirmed sounded in tort for deceit or was based on breach of contract. In any case the liability resulted from certain false statements made by the defendant's authorized agent, the plaintiffs having relied on the statements to their detriment.
W. Harold Bigham,
Agency -- 1961 Tennessee Survey (II),
15 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol15/iss3/8