ÿWPCy …4Vj 0(yw@¡ 0lá 0DM‘ 0J™ 0Tã 0^7 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1u 0dv UBÚ % U6" B)X DC AMÄ BU*.Xsv~vÓŽ D3a 0@” AOÔÆ# 0Dé D/- B\·‚^!ÔøÔô3|xÒ($¡¡ ¾D¿EÀÁ8eÂÃÄÅÆDÇÓ€((3úÝ$¤¤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<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òFebruary€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔThe€original€RAA€stipulated€a€return€to€Seattle,€unless€the€partiesÏà0 àinitially€agreed€to€another€location.€€No€alternative€agreement€wasÏmade,€therefore€Seattle€was€the€only€location€to€which€plaintiff€wasÏentitled€to€relocate.ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÒ Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÑ ý ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€zXXdÈdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€#&"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€€€€à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àEASTERN€SECTIONÌó óÌÌÌÌÌGORDON€L.€BIRGE,à àà àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9609„CH„00295Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à)€KNOX€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€HON.€FREDERICK€D.€McDONALD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€CHANCELLORÌTHE€BOEING€COMPANY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€AFFIRMEDÌà àDefendant„Appellant.à à)€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌÌÌÌÌJENNIFER€B.€MORTON€and€CAROL€S.€NICKLE,€NICKLE€&€MORTON,€LLC,ÏKnoxville,€for€Plaintiff„Appellee.ÌÌTHOMAS€M.€HALE,€KRAMER,€RAYSON,€LEAKE,€RODGERS€&€MORGAN,ÏKnoxville,€for€Defendant„Appellant.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌà@ àòòÌÓÓóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranks.€J.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€action€for€breach€of€contract,€the€ChancellorÏdetermined€that€plaintiff€was€not€entitled€to€recover€damages,Ïbut€declared€the€contract€could€possibly€be€enforced€in€aÏsubsequent€action.€€The€defendant€has€appealed€from€thisÍjudgment.Ìà àà àThe€complaint€alleged€that€plaintiff,€an€employee€ofÏdefendant€was€transferred€from€Seattle,€Washington€to€Oak€Ridge,ÏTennessee€on€January€15,€1988,€and€that€the€parties€entered€intoÏa€relocation€agreement€œeffective€on›€completion€of€plaintiffððsÏOak€Ridge€assignment,€and€averred:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àPlaintiff€has€offered€and€œtendered›€full€performance€ofÏall€the€terms€of€the€contract€on€his€part€to€beÏperformed,€but€defendant€has€wrongfully€refused€theÏsame,€and€has€notified€plaintiff€that€defendant€wouldÏnot€accept€this€offer€and€tender.ÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€complaint€further€alleged€that€the€defendantÏbreached€the€contract€ð ðby€failing€to€provide€to€plaintiff€theÏpromised€relocation€benefitsð ð.€€Subsequently,€the€complaint€wasÏamended€to€ask€for€specific€performance€of€the€contract.Ìà àà àFollowing€trial,€the€Chancellor€filed€a€memorandumÏopinion€which€stated€that€Boeing€had€a€contractually€bindingÏobligation€ð ðto€pay€the€costs€of€Mr.€Birgeððs€relocation€back€toÏSeattle€upon€the€completion€of€his€Oak€Ridge€assignments.€..Ï.ð ð€€But€the€Court€rejected€plaintiffððs€argument€that€defendantÏunreasonably€refused€to€approve€relocation€benefits€when€heÏmoved€œto›€a€farm€in€Roane€County€some€30€miles€or€so€from€hisÏHardin€Valley€property€residence€in€Tennessee.€€In€ruling€on€theÏissue€of€damages,€the€Trial€Court€said:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àThe€Boeing€Company€acted€reasonably€in€saying€it€wasÏnot€agreeing€that€Plaintiff€was€entitled€to€benefitsÏfor€relocation€to€Seattle€in€view€of€PlaintiffððsÏattempt€to€do€such€an€absolute€minimum€so€as€to€beÍentitled€to€be€paid€benefits€that€the€question€wasÏleft€shrouded€in€confusion€and€doubt,€and€especiallyÏin€light€of€his€suggestion€that€if€Defendant€would€payÏhim€for€the€relocation€costs€arising€from€the€sale€ofÏhis€Hardin€Valley€Road€home€he€would€forgo€theÏexpenses€of€moving€to€Seattle,€which€rather€stronglyÏindicated€that€he€had€no€intent€of€moving€back€toÏSeattle.€€When€everything€is€considered,€the€minimumÏrequirement€to€establish€a€relocation,€is€that€Mr.ÏBirge€make€Seattle€his€principal,€primary€residence.€ÏHe€has€not€done€this€yet,€and€so€as€has€been€alreadyÏruled€is€not€now€entitled€to€any€costs€reimbursement.€ÏAccordingly,€his€claim€for€money€damages€and€specificÏperformance€must€be,€and€is€dismissed.ÌÌÓÓThe€Court€further€declared€that€if€plaintiff€relocated€toÏSeattle€within€a€reasonable€time,€he€would€be€entitled€to€beÏpaid€relocation€benefits,€and€suggested€that€six€monthsÏfollowing€the€trial€date€or€possibly€less,€would€constitute€aÏreasonable€time.Ìà àà àDefendantððs€appeal€essentially€argues€that€plaintiffÏis€not€entitled€to€recover€under€the€terms€of€the€contract,Ïafter€plaintiffððs€self„imposed€deadline€for€relocating.Ìà àà àPlaintiff€retired€in€August€1992,€and€determined€thatÏproperty€values€had€increased€in€Seattle€since€his€move,€and€wasÏalso€aware€that€Boeing€had€recently€laid€off€7,000€employees.€ÏBecause€his€wife€hoped€to€remain€with€Boeing€until€herÏretirement,€she€wished€to€continue€working€at€the€Oak€RidgeÏlocation€for€a€few€years.€€Given€the€circumstances,€plaintiffÏasked€Boeingððs€Human€Resources€department€whether€his€relocationÏagreement€could€instead€be€used€to€cover€the€expenses€of€movingÏfrom€Knox€County€to€Roane€County,€Tennessee.€€Plaintiff€believedÍthis€plan€would€be€approved,€because€it€would€cost€less€than€aÏmove€to€Seattle,€and€because€he€had€known€Boeing€employees€whoÏhad€been€relocated€to€a€region€other€than€their€originalÏlocation.€€Plaintiff€was€told€that€his€relocation€agreementÏwould€not€cover€a€move€to€Roane€County€because€it€was€a€moveÏwithin€the€same€geographical€area€or€local€labor€market.Ìà àà àPlaintiff€then€advised€Boeing€that€he€planned€to€moveÏto€Seattle.€€However,€he€also€indicated€that€if€the€companyÏagreed€to€pay€the€cost€for€the€move€to€Roane€County,€he€wouldÏwaive€his€right€to€return€to€Seattle.€€Boeing€consistentlyÏinformed€plaintiff€that€it€would€only€pay€for€the€move€toÏSeattle,€and€that€the€company€would€disapprove€his€relocationÏbenefits€if€his€move€to€Seattle€entailed€the€purchase€of€aÏrecreation€vehicle€or€vacation€property.€€He€was€told€that€hisÏrelocation€would€qualify€for€reimbursement€only€if€he€returnedÏto€the€original€location,€along€with€his€household€goods€andÏvehicles.Ìà àà àPlaintiff€requested€a€yearlong€extension€to€locate€Ïproperty€in€Seattle.€€He€advised€he€would€ð ðforfeitð ð€hisÏð ðrelocation€rightsð ð€after€August€1,€œ1993€if€he€had€notÏrelocated.›€€A€dispute€promptly€arose€when€plaintiff€attempted€toÏdetermine€how€minimal€a€commitment€he€could€make€to€return€toÏSeattle€and€still€have€the€company€pay€his€costs€of€relocation.Ìà àà àSubsequently,€plaintiff€filed€this€action€on€August€1,Í1994,€two€years€to€the€day€following€his€retirement.Ìà àà àThe€interpretation€of€an€unambiguous€contract€is€aÏquestion€of€law.€€òòPetty€v.€Sloanóó,€197€Tenn.€630,€277€S.W.2d€355Ï(1955);€òòRainey€v.€Stansellóó,€836€S.W.2d€117€(Tenn.App.€1992).€ÏThe€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€ofÏcorrectness.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d);€òòEstate€of€Haynes€v.€Bradenóó,€835ÏS.W.2d€19€(Tenn.App.€1992).€€Ìà àà àThe€Relocation€Authorization€and€AgreementÏ(hereinafter€ð ðRAAð ð)€includes€a€ð ðCommitment€to€Reimburse€anÏEmployee€for€Cost€of€Relocation€on€Return€to€Original€Location.ð ð€ÏIt€states€that€Plaintiff:Ò 4 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà0 àwill€be€reimbursed€for€costÏof€relocation€uponÏcompletion€of€the€workÏassignment€and€his€locationÏto€Seattle,€WashingtonÏ(original€location)€unlessÏan€alternative€arrangementÏis€subsequently€agreed€uponÏin€writing.€€The€anticipatedÏduration€of€his€workÏassignment€will€beÏapproximately€two€yearsÏ(time).€à àÌà àSuch€reimbursement€will€be€in€accordance€withÏà0 àthe€specific€plan€of€reimbursement€in€theÏAdministrative€Procedure€previously€named€inÏthis€Relocation€Authorization€and€Agreement€„€RÏform,€subject€to€any€revisions€of€that€plan€inÏeffect€at€the€time€of€return€.€.€.€If€youÏretire,€die,€or€become€permanently€disabledÏwhile€on€the€work€assignment,€the€Company€willÏhonor€this€commitment.€€This€commitment€will€beÏnullified€if€you€Ìà àÌà0 à1.€€voluntarily€resign,Ìà à2.€are€dismissed€for€cause,€Ìà0 à3.€decline€to€accept€assignment€at€your€originalÏlocation,€or€Ìà0 à4.€are€unable€to€return€to€your€originalÏlocation€due€to€reasons€not€acceptable€to€theÏCompany.Ò Ü ÒÒ ° ÒÌÓÓRAA,€p.€6,€Ex.3.Ìà àà àThe€letter€relied€upon€heavily€by€defendant€on€appeal,Ïwritten€to€defendant€by€plaintiff€states€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà0 àà0 àDue€to€the€real€estate€boom€in€Seattle€since€myÏdeparture€in€1988,€it€is€impossible€for€me€to€returnÏand€purchase€an€equivalent€home€at€the€current€SeattleÏvalues.€€A€one€year€extension€on€the€home€search€andÏrelocation€is€requested€which€will€give€me€time€to€seeÏif€the€Seattle€real€estate€market€comes€down€from€theÏpresent€high€to€something€reasonable.ÌÌà0 àà0 àI€plan€to€sell€my€home€here,€either€by€Realtor€or€Ïthrough€the€company€home€purchase€plan.€€If€I€cannotÏfind€reasonably€priced€property€in€the€Seattle€areaÏwithin€the€one€year€extension€(from€August€1,€1992€toÏAugust€1,€1993)€I€will€forfeit€my€relocation€rights.ÌÌÓÓA€handwritten€note€at€the€bottom€of€the€letter€indicates€thatÏthe€extension€was€approved€by€defendant.Ìà àà àPlaintiff€met€his€self„imposed€deadline€by€filing€forÏrelocation€within€that€one€year,€when€he€submitted€a€request€forÏapproval€to€relocate€in€June€of€1993.€€Ìà àà àHowever,€plaintiff€then€sent€an€August,€1993€letterÏasking€Boeing€to€hold€off€on€the€relocation€process€until€theÏcompany€clarified€questions€he€had€regarding€the€ð ðminimumÏhousehold€goods,€vehicles,€etc.ð ð€that€could€qualify€his€move€forÏreimbursement€of€expenses.€€He€had€been€told€that€Boeing€wouldÏdisapprove€his€relocation€benefits€if€his€move€to€SeattleÏentailed€the€purchase€of€a€recreational€vehicle€or€vacationÏproperty€and€that€his€relocation€would€qualify€only€if€heÍreturned€to€the€original€location€with€his€spouse,€householdÏgoods€and€vehicles.€€Plaintiffððs€letter€reiterated€his€beliefÏthat€a€move€to€somewhere€besides€Seattle€would€qualify€him€forÏreimbursement€of€the€costs.€€Boeing€responded€that€they€couldÏnot€give€him€a€deviation€from€the€policy€of€being€returned€toÏSeattle€because€other€long„term€employees€with€similarÏcircumstances€had€retired€from€the€Oak€Ridge€facility€and€wereÏnot€provided€with€such€relocation€benefits,€and€the€relocationÏpolicy€did€not€apply€because€plaintiff€had€no€plans€to€relocateÏanywhere€outside€his€current€geographical€area.× ƒ' ××  ×€€Ìà àà àImplicit€in€Boeingððs€commitment€to€return€an€employeeÏto€their€original€location€is€the€purpose€of€making€the€transferÏto€a€new€location€less€painful.€€It€assures€the€employee€that€heÏor€she€will€not€have€to€remain€in€the€region€where€they€haveÏbeen€transferred.€€An€outline€of€the€situations€and€costs€forÏwhich€Boeing€would€reimburse€the€employee€is€set€forth€in€theÏpolicy€documents.€€These€documents€note€that€reimbursement€isÏnot€awarded€for€an€employee€reassigned€from€one€Boeing€locationÏto€another€within€a€locality.€€The€costs€covered€when€anÏemployee€is€relocated€include€the€kinds€of€items€which€a€courtÏmight€consider€in€assessing€whether€someone€had€actually€movedÍtheir€primary€residence€to€another€state,€such€as€the€transportÏof€an€employee€and€his/her€dependents,€the€shipment€of€vehicles,Ïpersonal€possessions,€and€household€goods,€and€the€search€for€aÏresidence€before€making€the€move.€€The€record€reveals€thatÏplaintiff€has€exercised€little€effort€in€searching€for€a€SeattleÏresidence.€€This€fact,€combined€with€Plaintiffððs€consistentÏefforts€to€find€out€the€minimum€amount€he€could€take€to€SeattleÏand€still€receive€the€company€benefits€for€his€move€do€notÏestablish€equities€in€his€favor.Ìà àà àThe€contract€entered€by€the€parties€in€1988€containedÏno€provision€as€to€the€time€for€performance,€and€under€theseÏcircumstances€the€familiar€rule€that€a€reasonable€time€isÏimplied€is€applicable€here.€€Equity€abhors€a€forfeiture,€and€weÏagree€with€the€Trial€Court€that€the€terms€of€plaintiffððs€letterÏimposing€a€deadline€on€performance€should€not€create€aÏforfeiture.€€However,€this€letter€is€evidence€of€what€plaintiffÏconsidered€to€be€a€reasonable€time€for€performance€of€theÏcontract.€€In€determining€what€constitutes€a€reasonable€time,Ïthe€court€is€required€to€take€into€account€the€subject€matter€ofÏthe€contract,€the€circumstances€of€the€parties,€theirÏintentions,€and€what€they€contemplated€at€the€time€the€contractÏwas€made.€òòSee€Calcasieu€Paper€Co.€v.€Memphis€Paper€Co.,óó€32€Tenn.ÏApp.€293€(1949).€€Ìà àà àWe€believe€plaintiff€had€a€reasonable€time€to€relocateÍto€the€Seattle€area€by€the€time€this€action€was€filed,€and€heÏmay€not€œlater€seek›€future€benefits€under€the€contract.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€as€modified,€and€theÏcosts€are€assessed€to€the€plaintiff.€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌ