him, he cannot state a claim for breach on this ground. See Life Care Ctrs. of Am., 79 F.3d at 514 (concluding that damages are an essential element of a breach of contract under Tennessee law). 8 . Wachovia arrives at this calculation by taking the $389.66 per month payment specified in the May DFA plus Hinton’s "regular payment” of $887.72. J.A. at 24 (May DFA at 1). Wachovia determines the "regular payment” to be $887.72 by dividing $7101.77, the total of the eight "regular payments,” by eight. Id. 11 . Wachovia’s conduct, even if deceptive, might not be covered by the TCPA because it is not clear under Tennessee law that such actions related to a forebearance agreement would be seen as affecting commerce. See Pursell v. First Am. Nat’l Bank, 937 S.W.2d 838, 840-42 (Tenn.1996)
holding that claim against state for failing to prevent sexual abuse was covered by statute holding that a claim for breach of a provision in a merger agreement arises from the purchase or sale of the debtors securities holding that payments from a tortfeasors insurer are not from a collateral source because they stem directly from the tortfeasor recognizing that discrepancy regarding political activities went to the heart of petitioners claims where those activities formed the basis of the persecution claim holding that a claim for deception regarding lenders repossession of debtors collateral was not covered by the tcpa but explicitly refraining from exempting banking activities from the tcpa