ÿWPC‰ 3# ÚUNå %3 0(9w@a4¡µÄ 0lÌ 0D8 0J| 0TÆ 0^ 0hx 0rà 0|R 0†Î 0T 1uä 0dY B½ 0@Ú D3 U>M B)‹ DC´ AM÷ U*D AQn Æ¿ 0D… 0DÉ D/ B< Y Ðhv~8vÓ¶˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¨ D© Dª D« ¬ ­ V® V¯ Ó€» ¾ §aö"3|x¾ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òAugust€1,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝCity€Ordinance€No.€1991„28€is€discussed€by€the€trial€court€and€argued€on€appeal.€ÏHowever,€Angus€concedes€that€the€City€did€not€violate€City€Ordinance€No.€1991„28,€and€as€notedÏin€his€brief,€it€is€inapplicable€in€this€case€because€the€demolition€projects€at€issue€are€valued€in€anÏamount€greater€than€$4,000.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ¯XXdðdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌHAL€ANGUS,€d/b/aà àà àà àà à)ÌHAL€ANGUS€DEMOLITION,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà àò ò)à àó óMadison€Law€No.€C„94„072Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)̜ـ*ÙßR€'/&A1-j|jù¥` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà àœ)à àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9509„CV„00208ò ò›ÌCITY€OF€JACKSON,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà àò ò)ÌÌÌÌó óÌÌà0 àà àà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€MADISON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€JACKSON,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WHIT€LAFON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòòÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:ÌÌPhillip€L.€Davidsonà àà àà àà àSidney€W.€SpraginsÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àJonathon€O.€SteenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.€ÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€ ¯XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€this€case,€a€demolition€company€filed€a€lawsuit€against€the€City€of€Jackson€for€breaching€Ïan€alleged€implied€contract€between€the€two€parties€by€failing€to€mail€the€plaintiff€demolitionÏcompany€invitations€to€bid€on€demolition€projects.€€The€trial€court€œgranted€the›€Cityððs€motion€forÏsummary€judgment,€and€the€plaintiff€appealed.€We€affirm.Ìà àThe€basic€facts€are€not€in€dispute.€€Hal€Angus€is€the€sole€owner€of€Hal€Angus€DemolitionÏ(ð ðAngusðð),€which€has€operated€for€over€twenty€years€in€Madison€County€€and€specializes€in€theÏdemolition€of€buildings.€€€Angusðð€principle€client€over€that€twenty€year€period€was€the€City€ofÏJackson,€Tennessee€(ð ðCityðð).€€Angus€performed€a€number€of€jobs€for€the€City,€demolishingÏvarious€buildings€in€Jackson.€€€Angus€obtained€the€majority€of€these€jobs€by€submitting€bids€on€theÏCityððs€projects.€€Prior€to€the€submission€of€bids€the€City€would€normally€send€ð ðinvitations€to€bidððÏto€a€number€of€persons€or€entities€qualified€to€perform€the€job,€including€Angus.€Ìà àIn€October,€1992,€Angus€was€involved€in€a€controversy€regarding€the€demolition€of€aÏrailroad€trestle;€Angus€asserts€that€he€was€cleared€of€any€wrongdoing.€€Subsequently,€AngusÏcontends€that€the€City€stopped€its€prior€practice€of€sending€him€invitations€to€bid€on€all€demolitionÏjobs€for€which€he€was€qualified,€and€sent€him€bids€only€on€small€projects.€€Angus€contends€that,Ïfrom€this€point€forward,€he€was€awarded€far€fewer€jobs€and€that€this€had€a€significant€adverseÏfinancial€impact€€on€his€business.€€As€a€result,€Angus€filed€this€lawsuit€against€the€City.€€Ìà àUnder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€6„56„304,€local€government€entities€are€required€toÏpublicly€advertise€and€accept€competitive€bids€on€most€purchases€of€services€over€$2,500.€TheÏCity€enacted€an€ordinance€similar€to€this€statute,€City€Ordinance€No.€1991„28.€€This€ordinanceÏprovided€that€City€purchases€of€less€than€$4,000€but€more€than€$1,000€should,€when€possible,€beÏbased€on€at€least€three€competitive€bids.€€The€demolition€projects€at€issue€in€this€case€were€valued€atÏgreater€than€$4,000;€consequently,€the€City€Ordinance€is€inapplicable.Ìà àAngus€originally€alleged€that€the€City€violated€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€6„56„304€andÏCity€Ordinance€No.1991„28€by€failing€to€send€him€invitations€to€bid€on€certain€demolition€projects.€ÏHe€later€amended€his€complaint€to€allege€that€the€City€had€violated€the€statute€and€ordinance€by€notÍaccepting€certain€bids€that€he€submitted.€€Angus€also€contended€that€the€Cityððs€failure€to€mail€himÏinvitations€to€bid€violated€an€implied€contract€that€resulted€from€a€ð ðpattern€of€dealingsðð€developedÏby€the€parties€over€the€years.Ìà àThe€City€filed€a€Motion€to€Dismiss€alleging€that€it€had€complied€with€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€ðð€6„56„304€and€City€Ordinance€No.1991„28€by€placing€notice€of€the€upcomingÏdemolition€jobs€in€the€local€newspaper€in€the€form€of€advertisements.€The€trial€court€treated€theÏCityððs€motion€to€dismiss€as€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€and€held€a€hearing€on€the€motion.€€InÏresponse€to€the€motion,€Angus€presented€no€proof€in€the€record€that€the€City€failed€to€advertise€theÏprospective€demolition€projects€in€the€local€newspaper,€or€that€the€City€limited€the€bidding€onÏdemolition€projects€only€to€contractors€who€received€invitations€to€bid.Ìà à€After€the€hearing€on€the€Cityððs€motion,€the€trial€court€made€several€findings€of€fact,Ïincluding€the€following:€ÌÓÓà8 à4.à àThe€City€of€Jackson€is€required€to€publish€a€Notice€of€invitation€to€bid,Ïpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€6„56„304€and€City€of€Jackson€Ordinance€No.1991„28,€but€isÏnot€required€to€mail€invitations€to€bid€to€particular€individuals;Ìà8 à5.à àDefendant€has€in€all€instances€regarding€demolition€projects€fully€compliedÏwith€the€bidding€procedures€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€6„56„304€and€City€of€JacksonÏOrdinance€No.€1991„28.ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€found€that€the€partiesðð€course€of€conduct€did€not€establish€an€implied€contract.€€ItÏconcluded€that€there€was€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€granted€summary€judgment€toÏthe€City.€€Ìà àAngus€then€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€under€Rule€59.04€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€asserting€that€newly€discovered€documents€raised€a€genuineÏissue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€plaintiff€had€received€an€invitation€to€bid€on€various€demolitionÏprojects€and€whether€the€City€had€followed€its€normal€procedures€in€accepting€contractorsðð€bids.ÏThe€€ð ðnewly€discovered€evidenceðð€consisted€of€the€affidavits€of€Angus€and€Charles€McBride,€aÏformer€City€worker.€€€€McBrideððs€affidavit€stated€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 à3.€€The€procedure€employed€by€the€City€for€œat€least›€twenty€years€was€as€follows:Ï(1)€a€contractor€sent€a€letter€to€the€City€and€requested€to€be€put€on€a€list€of€approvedÍbidders.€€Without€being€on€this€list,€no€one€could€receive€an€invitation€to€bid,€(2)Ïonce€a€project€was€identified,€it€was€put€in€the€[news]paper.€€However,€this€was€aÏformality.€€Nothing€in€the€paper€notice€described€the€necessary€requirements€for€theÏbid,€(3)€invitations€to€bid€were€sent€by€the€City€to€the€persons€on€the€approved€list.€ÏIf€you€were€not€on€the€list€you€did€not€receive€an€invitation€to€bid,€and€(4)€the€bidsÏcame€in€and€the€lowest€bidder,€in€most€cases,€got€the€job.Ìà8 à4.€€This€procedure€was€followed€in€every€instance€by€the€City.€€It€was€not€deviatedÏfrom.€€Every€person€on€the€list€knew€the€procedure€and€depended€on€it.ÌÓÓà8 à5.€€œOnly›€œpersons›€on€the€list€bid,€no€one€else€did.€ÌThe€ð ðnewly€discovered€evidenceðð€also€included€the€transcript€of€the€deposition€of€Susan€White,€theÏCity€purchaser€who€was€familiar€with€the€procedures€employed€by€City€in€awarding€demolitionÏcontracts.€€Whiteððs€deposition€was€taken€prior€to€the€hearing€on€the€Cityððs€motion,€but€notÏtranscribed€until€after€judgment€was€entered.€ò ò€€ó óHer€deposition€described€the€bidding€process€andÏstated€in€part€that,€to€be€put€on€the€Cityððs€ð ðbid€list,ðð€a€demolition€company€need€only€write€a€letterÏwith€such€a€request.Ìà àIn€response€to€Angusðð€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€the€City€maintained€that€the€alleged€ð ðnewlyÏdiscovered€evidenceðð€was€available€to€Angus€prior€to€entry€of€summary€judgment.€€The€City€alsoÏcontended€that€the€evidence€did€not€create€any€genuine€issue€of€fact€as€to€whether€the€City€wasÏrequired€to€continue€sending€Angus€invitations€to€bid€on€projects,€or€whether€the€City€hadÏcomplied€with€the€statutory€requirements.€€The€trial€court€subsequently€denied€Angusðð€motion€toÏalter€or€amend€the€judgment.€€Angus€then€filed€this€appeal.€Ìà àOn€appeal,€Angus€argues€that€the€ð ðnewly€discovered€evidenceðð€proffered€with€his€motion€toÏalter€or€amend€the€judgment€created€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact.€€He€asserts€further€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€holding€that€the€City€was€not€required€to€continue€the€bidding€procedure€it€hadÏfollowed,€which€included€mailing€invitations€to€bid€to€Angus.€€Consequently,€he€asks€this€Court€toÏreverse€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€City€and€to€remand€the€case€for€a€trial€onÏthe€merits.€€Ìà àA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movant€demonstrates€thatÏthere€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€aÏmatter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€theÍburden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847ÏS.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€210„11.€€SummaryÏjudgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawn€from€the€factsÏreasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€are€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regardingÏa€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Therefore,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€grant€ofÏsummary€judgment€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó̜Ǜà àAngus€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€consider€the€additional€evidenceÏsubmitted€with€his€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment.€€For€purposes€of€this€appeal,€we€shallÏconsider€all€of€the€evidence€submitted€by€Angus,€including€the€ð ðnewly€discovered€evidence,ðð€toÏdetermine€whether€the€City€was€entitled€to€a€grant€of€summary€judgment.Ìà àThe€central€issue€is€whether€the€City€was€under€a€legal€duty€to€continue€mailing€to€AngusÏan€invitation€to€bid€on€each€upcoming€demolition€project.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€6„56„304Ïsets€forth€the€Cityððs€duty€to€publicly€advertise€an€invitation€to€bid€on€an€upcoming€demolitionÏproject.€€This€was€done€by€placing€a€notice€as€advertising€such€in€the€local€newspaper.€€€AngusÏconcedes€that€the€City€did€not€violate€the€requirements€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€6„56„304œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›.€€ÏThus,€€the€City€is€entitled€to€summary€judgment€unless€Angus€can€show€that€there€existed€anÏimplied€contract€between€Angus€and€the€City,€under€which€the€City€was€required€to€mail€AngusÏinvitations€to€bid.Ìà àAngus€insists€that€the€Cityððs€practice€of€sending€him€invitations€to€bid€on€demolitionÏprojects€over€a€period€of€years€created€an€implied€contract€between€the€two€parties.€€He€contendsÏthat€€the€Cityððs€failure€to€provide€him€with€invitations€to€bid€on€certain€demolition€projectsÏconstituted€a€breach€of€that€implied€contract.Ìà àTennessee€recognizes€two€distinct€types€of€implied€contracts;€namely,€contracts€implied€inÏfact€and€contracts€implied€in€law,€commonly€referred€to€as€quasi€contracts.òòò ò€€Paschallððs,€Inc.€v.ÏœDozieró óóó,€219€Tenn.€45,€53„54,›€407€S.W.2d€150,€154€œ(1966).›€Ìà àContracts€implied€in€fact€arise€under€circumstances€which€show€mutual€intent€or€assent€toÏcontract.€€ò òòòWeatherly€v.€American€œAgric.›€œChem.€Co.óóó ó,€16€Tenn.€App.€613,›€65€S.W.2d€œ592Ï(1933).›€€Mutual€assent€and€a€meeting€of€the€minds€cannot€be€accomplished€by€the€unilateral€actionÏof€one€party.€€òòSeeóó€òòò òBatson€v.€Pleasant€View€œUtil.›€œDist.ó óóó,›€592€S.W.2d€578,€582€(Tenn€.App.Í1979).€€Here,€the€Cityððs€unilateral€action€in€mailing€invitations€to€bid€to€Angus€does€not€establishÏmutual€assent.€€No€contract€between€the€parties€existed€until€Angus€submitted€a€bid€on€a€projectÏwhich€was€accepted€by€the€City.€€Angus€submitted€no€proof€in€the€record€that€an€invitation€to€bidÏconstituted€mutual€œÇassent›€that€Angus€would€contract€with€City€for€the€performance€on€a€demolition€project.€ÏTherefore,€Angus€failed€to€present€evidence€creating€a€genuine€issue€regarding€€a€contract€impliedÏin€fact.Ì€€€à àContracts€implied€in€law€are€created€by€law€without€the€assent€of€the€party€bound,€on€theÏbasis€that€they€are€dictated€by€reason€and€justice.òòò ò€Weatherly€v.€American€Agr.€ChemicalÏœCo.ó óóó,€16€Tenn.€App.€613,›€65€S.W.2d€592€œ(1933).›€A€party€seeking€to€recover€on€an€implied€in€lawÏor€quasi€contract€theory€must€prove€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àœA›€benefit€conferred€upon€the€defendant€by€the€œplaintiff,€€appreciation›€by€theÏdefendant€of€such€œbenefit,›€œand›€acceptance€of€€such€benefit€under€such€circumstancesÏthat€it€would€be€inequitable€œfor€him›€to€retain€the€benefit€without€payment€œof›€theÏvalue€thereof.€ÌòòÌœóóò òòòPaschallððs,›€œInc.óóó ó,€219€Tenn.€at€57,›€407€S.W.2d€at€155.Ì€ÌÓÓà àIn€this€case,€Angus€failed€to€submit€any€proof€in€the€record€of€the€first€element,€a€benefitÏreceived€by€the€City€which€would€created€a€legal€duty€for€the€City€to€provide€Angus€withÏinvitations€to€bid€on€all€upcoming€demolition€projects.€€€Consequently,€Angus€failed€to€presentÏevidence€creating€a€genuine€issue€as€to€whether€there€existed€a€contract€implied€by€law.€Therefore,Ïthe€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€City€must€be€affirmed.€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellant,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÌ€€€€€€€€€