is working pursuant to the subcontract. It may not even be necessary that the principal contractor have a contract for sale for the specific lot on which the subcontractor’s employee is injured if the subcontractor has undertaken to perform work on a group of lots that are to be sold to the public, and at the time of the injury, one or more contracts exist between the principal contractor and a third party. The primary basis for the statutory employer status is that the owner/developer is in the business of building and selling homes and it is understood by the parties that the homes being built are to be sold to the public before or during construction and one or more are sold prior to the injury. Cf. Clendening v. London Assurance Co., 206 Tenn. 601, 336 S.W.2d 535, 538 (1960) (<HOLDING>). The subcontractor working on a development
holding that rental value was properly included as part of damages on action for breach of building contract where contractor failed to complete building within contracted time holding that the owner could maintain a 93a claim against the subcontractor where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner was the thirdparty beneficiary of the contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor holding that builder who was in the business of building and selling homes and who had a contract for the building of a home in which employee of subcontractor was injured was to be considered a principal contractor for purposes of workers compensation even though at the time of injury he was the owner of the house being built holding that the condominium association was not a thirdparty beneficiary of contracts between the owner and contractor of the condominium building and between the general contractor and the subcontractors holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor