To prevail on a claim for inducement of breach of contract under both the Tennessee common law and statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-109, a plaintiff must first prove, as a threshold matter, the existence of a legal and enforceable contract. Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics E., Inc. v. Kitchens, 280 S.W.3d 192, 205 (Tenn.Ct. App.2009); New Life Corp. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 932 S.W.2d 921, 926 (Tenn.Ct. App.1996); Emmco Ins. Co. v. Beacon Mut. Indem. Co., 204 Tenn. 540, 322 S.W.2d 226, 231 (1959). If the contract provisions upon which Affinion’s claims are based are unenforceable as a matter of law and/or public policy, then Affinion’s claims based upon EOC’s inducement of the breach of those particular provisions will necessarily fail. See Givens v. Mullikin, 75 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn.2002) (<HOLDING>); TSC Indus., Inc. v. Tomlin, 743 S.W.2d 169,
holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable holding that the plaintiff failed to allege breach of a valid and enforceable contract but stated a claim for promissory estoppel holding that the plaintiff had not stated a claim for inducement to breach a contract where she had not alleged facts sufficient to show the existence of an enforceable underlying contract holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract