ÿWPCC *# \UNg %µ 0˜»U<Sw@4Ïãò 0Üú 0DÖ 0J 0Td 0^¸ 0h 0r~ 0|ð 0†l 0ò 1u‚ 0d÷ U>[ <™ v~ÕvÓS B&˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(püƒ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman 2U34E56E78U9U:î;Ó€ˆD!3|x;(Œ(3Od$¤¤Ý ƒüƒ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔAlthough€the€contract€was€between€Company€and€Brewer,€theÏChancellor€awarded€judgment€against€both€defendants.€€On€appeal,€defendantsÏdo€not€present€an€issue€pertaining€to€Ms.€Colettaððs€personal€liability,€so€theÏissue€is€waived.€€Defendants€will€be€treated€as€joint€obligors.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò dÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ7€^­XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  Ñà@ àÞ ÞÌà àà àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€________________________________________________ÌÌò òCLYDE€NORMAN€BREWER,€JR.,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Equity€No.€104568„1ÌÌò òCAROL€CORDELL€COLETTA€andÌCOLETTA€&€COMPANY,€INC.,€ó óÌÌà àDefendants„Appellants.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌà@ àMimi€Phillips;€Phillips,€Howard€&€Grubb€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Plaintiff„AppelleeÌÌà@ àCarl€I.€Jacobson;€Wyatt,€Tarrant€&€Combs€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Defendants„AppellantsÌÌà@ àÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDó óóóÌÌà@ àOpinion€filed:€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÌ›Ñ ° ÑÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€an€action€for€breach€of€an€employment€agreement.€ÏDefendants,€Carol€Cordell€Coletta€and€Coletta€&€Company,€Inc.,€appeal€fromÏthe€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€which€entered€judgment€in€the€amount€ofÏ$31,800.00€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€Clyde€Norman€Brewer,€Jr.Ìà àBrewer€and€Coletta€were€married€in€1976.€€In€1985,€they€started€a€publicÏrelations€firm€together€called€Coletta€Brewer€&€Company,€Inc.€€They€operatedÏthe€business€together€during€their€marriage,€and€were€equal€shareholders.€€TheÏcorporation€was€a€public€relations€firm€that€specialized€in€media€relations,Ïspecial€event€production,€speech€writing,€and€counseling.€€Ìà àIn€1993,€Coletta€and€Brewer€experienced€marital€problems€and€theirÏmarriage€started€to€break€up.€€Coletta€suggested€to€Brewer€that€they€write€dailyÍletters€to€each€other€that€explored€their€feelings€and€problems€and€how€theyÏwere€going€to€approach€the€problems.€€In€May€1993,€Brewer€started€to€write€aÏfictional€novel€based€on€his€relationship€with€Coletta.€€He€started€writing€theÏbook€over€the€course€of€the€initial€weeks€and€months€of€the€partiesðð€maritalÏdifficulties.€€However,€their€marital€problems€came€to€a€head€in€July€1993€whenÏBrewer€discovered€Coletta€and€her€lover€having€sex€on€the€bathroom€floor€ofÏher€home.€€Afterwards,€Brewer€decided€to€make€his€book€a€non„fiction€memoir.€ÏColetta€knew€he€was€writing€a€book€about€their€relationship,€and€even€returnedÏthe€personal€letters€that€Brewer€had€written€to€her€to€help€him€prepare€theÏmanuscript.€€€Ìà àThe€parties€were€divorced€and€entered€into€a€Marital€DissolutionÏAgreement€(MDA)€dated€August€13,€1993.€€The€MDA€required€Brewer€toÏtransfer€all€of€his€shares€in€Coletta€Brewer€&€Company€to€Coletta.€€Thereafter,ÏColetta,€now€the€sole€shareholder,€changed€the€name€of€the€corporation€toÏColetta€&€Company,€Inc.€€In€August€of€1993,€Brewer€entered€into€a€writtenÏagreement€(Agreement)€with€Coletta€&€Company,€Inc.€(hereinafter€Coletta€&ÏCompany€or€Company).€€In€the€Agreement,€Company€agreed€to€employ€BrewerÏas€a€consultant€for€24€months€to€perform€whatever€work€assignments€andÏconsulting€services€that€Company€required.€€In€return,€Brewer€was€to€be€paidÍ$72,000.00,€payable€in€24€equal€monthly€installments,€but€the€employment€wasÏnot€to€exceed€300€hours€per€year.€€Brewer€agreed€to€ð ðcarry€out€his€employmentÏwith€ordinary€care€and€diligence€to€the€best€of€his€abilities.ðð€€In€addition,ÏBrewer€agreed€to€a€two„year€covenant€not€to€compete.Ìà àIn€early€1994,€Brewer€finished€a€draft€of€the€manuscript€and€titled€it€òòJustÏFriendsóó.€€He€showed€it€to€Colettaððs€daughter€and€to€employees€of€Coletta€&ÏCompany.€€Brewer€also€gave€a€copy€ofòò€Just€Friendsóó€to€Michael€Lollar,€a€reporterÏfor€òòThe€Commercial€Appealóó.€€On€August€19,€1994,€Lollar€called€Coletta€forÏcomment€on€the€book.€€That€same€day,€the€chairman€of€Companyððs€largestÏclient€called€and€expressed€concern€about€the€book.€€Ìà àOn€August€22,€1994,€Coletta€informed€Brewer,€in€writing,€that€sheÏintended€to€terminate€his€services€and€that€she€would€not€pay€any€furtherÏpayments€under€the€Agreement.€€On€August€24,€1994,€Brewer€filed€a€ComplaintÏfor€Specific€Performance€and/or€for€Breach€of€Contract€against€Coletta€andÏColetta€&€Company.€€In€the€Complaint,€Brewer€alleges€that€Company€cannotÏcancel€the€Agreement€at€will€and€is€obligated€to€pay€him€the€full€amount€in€theÏAgreement.€€He€also€alleges€that€the€Agreement€was€entered€into€by€the€partiesÏin€return€for€the€transfer€of€his€stock€in€Coletta€Brewer€&€Company.€€He€claimsÏthat€the€amount€of€compensation€in€the€Agreement,€in€addition€to€theÍcovenant€not€to€compete€and€the€consulting€services,€was€just€consideration€forÏhis€stock€in€Coletta€Brewer€&€Company.€€He€claims€that€he€could€have€litigatedÏthe€divorce€but€chose€the€Agreement€instead€because€both€parties€wanted€toÏavoid€litigation.Ìà àOn€October€20,€1994,€the€defendants€filed€an€answer€denying€that€theyÏare€obligated€to€pay€Brewer.€€They€aver€that€Brewer€breached€the€impliedÏcovenant€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealing,€and€therefore,€cannot€recover.Ìà àOn€July€27,€1994,€the€cause€was€heard€by€the€chancery€court,€sittingÏwithout€a€jury.€€The€Chancellor€found€that€Coletta€knew€that€Brewer€wasÏwriting€the€book€and€returned€material€to€him€to€help€him€in€preparation€forÏthe€book.€€He€also€found€that€there€was€no€proof€to€indicate€that€anything€inÏthe€book€was€incorrect.€€The€Chancellor€held€that€the€Agreement€was€notÏbreached€by€Brewer,€and€therefore,€by€failing€to€pay€Brewer€under€the€terms€ofÏthe€Agreement,€defendants€breached€the€contract.€€Judgment€was€enteredÏagainst€both€defendants€for€$31,800.00,€representing€the€balance€due€under€theÏAgreement€less€a€set„off€of€$7,200.00.€€Ìà àDefendants€have€appealed€and€present€this€issue€for€the€Court:€€Did€theÏChancellor€err€in€holding€that€defendant,€employer,€did€not€have€just€cause€toÏterminate€an€employment€agreement€where€plaintiff,€employee,€breached€hisÍduty€of€good€faith,€fair€dealing€and€loyalty€to€his€employer€by€engaging€inÏactivity€detrimental€to€defendantððs€business€interests€and€reputation.× ƒ ××  ×Ìà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€reviewÏthe€case€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfindings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ìà àDefendants€assert€that€Brewer€breached€a€duty€of€good€faith€byÏpublishing€his€book.€€They€argue€that€the€publication€of€the€book,€whichÏdetailed€Ms.€Colettaððs€infidelity,€was€detrimental€to€her€reputation€and€theÏbusiness€interests€of€Company.€€Ìà àIn€Tennessee,€every€contract€contains€an€implied€duty€of€good€faith€andÏfair€dealing€in€its€performance€and€enforcement.€€òòò òTSC€Industries,€Inc.€v.ÏTomlinóóó ó,€743€S.W.2d€169,€173€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€However,€the€extent€of€theÏduty€of€good€faith€depends€upon€the€individual€contract€in€each€case,€and€theÏcourt€should€look€to€the€language€of€the€instrument€and€to€the€intention€of€theÏparties€and€then€impose€a€construction€that€is€fair€and€reasonable.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€There€isÏan€implied€undertaking€in€every€contract€on€the€part€of€each€party€that€he€willÍnot€intentionally€or€purposely€do€anything€.€.€.€which€will€have€the€effect€ofÏdestroying€or€injuring€the€right€of€the€other€party€to€receive€the€fruits€of€theÏcontract.€€òòò òWinfree€v.€Educators€Credit€Unionóóó ó,€900€S.W.2d€285,€289€(Tenn.€App.Ï1995)€(quoting€17€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòContracts€óóðð€256€(1964)).Ìà àDefendants€rely€upon€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòò òCurtis€v.€Reevesóóó ó,€736ÏS.W.2d€108€(Tenn.€App.€1987).€€In€òòò òCurtisóóó ó,€the€plaintiff,€Dorothy€Curtis,€suedÏher€employer€after€she€was€fired€for€addressing€disparaging€remarks€to€one€ofÏher€employerððs€tenants.€€Curtis€was€employed€by€her€son„in„law,€Harold€Reeves,Ïas€a€custodian€in€his€building.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€109.€€After€her€daughterððs€marriage€toÏReeves€went€sour,€Curtis€told€a€tenant€about€the€marital€problems€and€said€thatÏshe€could€not€understand€how€the€tenant€could€stay€in€the€building€where€theÏlandlord€was€of€such€low€moral€character.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€110.€€The€Court€quoted€withÏapproval€56€C.J.S.€òòMaster€and€Servantóó€ðð€42(a)(1948):€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAs€a€general€proposition,€any€act€of€the€servant€whichÏinjures€or€has€a€tendency€to€injure€his€masterððsÏbusiness,€interests,€or€reputation€will€justify€theÏdismissal€of€the€servant.€€Actual€loss€is€not€essential;€itÏis€sufficient€if,€from€the€circumstances,€it€appears€thatÏthe€master€has€been,€or€is€likely€to€be,€damaged€by€theÏacts€of€which€complaint€is€made.ÌÌÓÓòòò òCurtisóóó ó,€736€S.W.2d€at€112.€€The€Court€held€that€Curtisððs€statements€wereÏdetrimental€to€Reevesððs€business€interests€and€violated€her€duty€to€advance€theÍinterest€of€the€business.à àÌà àMs.€Coletta€claims€that€the€publication€of€òòJust€Friendsóó€by€Brewer€was€aÏsimilar€violation€of€his€duty€to€advance€the€business€of€Coletta€&€Company,Ïand,€therefore,€there€was€no€breach€of€the€Agreement€when€his€employment€wasÏterminated.€€Brewer€testified€that€the€business€of€Coletta€&€Company,€a€publicÏrelations€firm,€is€judged€by€its€reputation,€its€credibility,€its€ability€to€keep€aÏsecret€of€a€client,€its€loyalty,€and€its€good€judgment.€€Ìà àWe€disagree€with€defendants€that€òòò òCurtisóóó ó€is€dispositive.€€In€that€case,€theÏplaintiff€addressed€her€remarks€directly€to€her€employerððs€tenant.€€òòò òCurtisóóó ó,€736ÏS.W.2d€at€110.€€In€addition,€the€plaintiffððs€and€the€defendantððs€families€were€inÏthe€midst€of€a€dispute€and€had€recently€quarreled€publicly.€€òòò òId.€€óóó óThe€Court€heldÏthat€statements€to€the€tenant,€encouraging€her€to€leave€the€building,€wereÏdetrimental€to€the€defendantððs€business€interests€and€reputation.€€Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€Brewerððs€book€was€not€channeled€directly€to€any€ofÏCompanyððs€clients.€€Although€Brewer€and€Coletta€were€in€the€midst€of€a€divorceÏand€the€book€may€have€been€authored€with€some€spite,€the€remarks€made€inÏthe€book€were€not€made€with€the€intention€of€hurting€Coletta€&€Company.€ÏThe€Chancellor€apparently€believed€Brewer€and€was€not€persuaded€that€heÏbreached€a€duty€of€good€faith.€€Moreover,€contrary€to€Ms.€Colettaððs€testimony,Íthere€was€testimony€from€one€of€Companyððs€major€clients€to€the€effect€that€theÏbook€had€no€impact€on€its€relationship€with€Company.€€The€weight,€faith,€andÏcredit€to€be€given€to€any€witnessððs€testimony€lie€in€the€first€instance€with€theÏtrier€of€fact,€and€the€credibility€accorded€will€be€given€great€weight€by€theÏappellate€court.€òòò òMays€v.€Brighton€Bankó óóó,€832€S.W.2d€347,€352€(Tenn.€App.Ï1992);€òòò òTown€of€Alamo€v.€Forcum„James€Coó óóó.,€327€S.W.2d€47,€49€(Tenn.€1959).Ñ7€žšXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÏà àAlthough€òòò òCurtisóóó ó€does€not€require€that€the€employer€show€actual€damages,Ïthe€employer€must€still€show€that€he€or€she€has€been,€or€is€likely€to€be,€damagedÏby€the€acts€of€which€complaint€is€made.€€òòò òCurtisóóó ó,€736€S.W.2d€at€112.€€In€1993Ïand€1994,€before€publication€of€the€book,€the€gross€receipts€of€ColettaððsÏbusiness€were€$400,000.00€and€$580,000.00,€respectively.€€Coletta€&€CompanyÏemployed€between€six€and€eight€employees€during€that€period.€€However,€in€theÏfirst€half€of€1995,€the€gross€receipts€at€Coletta€&€Company€dropped€toÏ$155,000.00€which€project€to€$310,000.00€for€the€year.€€Although€Coletta€&ÏCompany€did€not€make€as€much€money€in€1995€as€it€did€in€1994,€and€its€staffÏwas€reduced€to€two€employees,€there€was€no€proof€that€this€was€caused€by€theÏpublication€of€òòJust€Friends.óó€€To€the€contrary,€the€proof€showed€that€Coletta€&ÏCompany€lost€a€number€of€clients€for€other€business€reasons€including€a€moveÏout€of€Memphis€and€a€decentralization€of€a€marketing€division.€€Furthermore,ÍMs.€Colettaððs€reputation€did€not€appear€to€be€tarnished€following€publication€ofÏthe€book.€€The€proof€showed€that€she€was€the€luncheon€speaker€for€theÏMemphis€Downtown€Rotary€Club€and€was€featured€in€their€newsletter,€that€sheÏwas€in€a€òòMemphis€Magazineóó€article€titled€ð ðWomen€You€Need€to€Know,ðð€and€thatÏher€business€was€discussed€in€the€òòMemphis€Business€Journal.€€óóAll€of€these€accoladesÏcame€after€òòJust€Friendsóó€was€published.€€€€Ìà àWe€also€think€it€is€important€that€Ms.€Coletta€supported€the€writing€ofÏthe€book€and€never€felt€anything€Brewer€could€say€would€embarrass€her.€€BrewerÏtestified€that€she€said€that€nothing€she€had€ever€done€was€embarrassing€andÏthat€she€wouldnððt€want€to€do€anything€to€stop€the€book.€€Coletta€admitted€thatÏafter€publication€of€the€book€she€went€to€a€costume€party€dressed€as€HesterÏPrynne,€the€scorned€adulteress€in€òòThe€Scarlet€Letteróó.€€Ìà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Chancellorððs€finding€thatÏCompany€breached€Brewerððs€contract,€and€that€he€is€entitled€to€the€balance€dueÏthereon.Ìà àBrewer€presents€one€issue€for€review:€Whether€the€Chancellor€erred€inÏallowing€a€set„off€of€$7,200.00.€€When€Company€terminated€Brewerððs€contract,Ïit€transferred€an€account€to€Brewer€which€he€continued€servicing,€and€the€clientÍpaid€him€$7,200.00€directly€for€his€services.€€The€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€Chancellorððs€finding€that€this€amount€should€be€set€offÏagainst€Brewerððs€recovery.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€theÏappeal€are€assessed€against€appellants.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.ÌSENIOR€JUDGEó ó̜ԀÔ