ÿWPCÓ j­ÉFm= ªà>Ò8a…°%˜.Ÿ†¾:ø­£8o·€%=dö<àoÂê áß³a¯ àø×"/u¹”â™Á*ÿ%¦t²»yIÞë¾TËo¡íX÷[­ºO‡Úi•ôæ2Æ]÷k5D_3X˜§ÁPY@?Û¥™rTºÛÙáBnÛ™N¸úb?RÓûû0=N ðØ;ʷڀ¥y Ò…5ŒÂÍi˜Qª#AÆÊ¬ßÌÑ +!!©aÈYä)`âE¦Ì”(Ë®…ú9²†Ý^^ÓÉ&sH·—þàŠ¥uªš ök4HäNZ®E#ÍÙN¼P´Å?óE#ǶޖîÞûâå˜@eeõOÙ,ÔtÆYëCGïÍЇ$!ó6òºg=Diü+ÔˆBz‚wîºlTã(Ô>ý%“²Q¯W‘Ҧ$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó 'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝTyúÿ  <<= 8fæÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d düÿP PduTvwAÿÿ<< Bÿÿ‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(üP$““ò òTable€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ójj'÷ÿ dxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ݛҀ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼Lx¼XXÔÓ'€Ð†XDè“X°œX'ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ€ &3Ñœñññññññöñœñöñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñññöññöñBVT›€LEBANON€SHOPPINGà D à)Ð ° ÐññññCENTER,€LTD.,€a€Tennessee€Limitedà D à)Ð À Ðññœßt€ )>.*jxþt` `€€@EòD` 8ttxP*Ђ t tß›ññPartnership,à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)Ð Ð  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à àà D à)à è àà @ àAppeal€No.Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)à è àà @ à01„A„01„9710„CV„00607Ð  P Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)Ð  ` Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)à è àà @ àWilson€CircuitÐ  p ÐWAL„MART€STORES,€INC.,€aà D à)à è àà @ àNo.€€9113Ð 0 € Ðcorporation;€and€KUHN'S„BIG„Kà D à)Ð @  ÐSTORES€CORP.,€a€Tennesseeà D à)Ð P   Ðcorporation,à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)Ð `°  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà D à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellants.à D à)Ð €Ð  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓ€ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€WILSON€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌAT€€LEBANON,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€BOBBY€CAPERS,€JUDGEÌÌÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÔ€XfGX¼¼LxÔTHOMAS€V.€WHITEÐ Ø ( ÐKENNETH€F.€SCOTTÌTune,€Entrekin€&€White,€P.C.Ì21st€Floor,€First€American€CenterÌ315€Deaderick€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37238Ìà Ø àATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌJON€B.€COMSTOCKÌ702€S.W.€8th€StreetÌBentonville,€Arkansas€€72716ÌÌTHOMAS€W.€LAWRENCE,€JR.ÌParker,€Lawrence,€Cantrell€&€DeanÌ200€Fourth€Avenue€NorthÌFifth€FloorÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219ÌÌNEAL€AGEE,€JR.ÌAgee,€Agee€&€LannomÌP.€O.€Box€649ÌLebanon,€Tennessee€€37088„0649Ìà Ø àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTSÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED,ÌAND€REMANDEDÌñöñÑ &3ÑÑ7€fGXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÑ &3ÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑñöñÓ  ÓÌÔ€¼Lx¼XXfGÔWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ ”;ä6;9 ÐÑ &3ÑÑ7€fGXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñöñÑ &3ÑÑ7€öOXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑñöñœÓ  ÓÔ€„ÛÜ„¼¼LxÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ ° ÐÓ€ÓÌÓ  ÓÔ€¼Lx¼„„ÛÜÔà Ø àThis€is€a€suit€by€a€limited€partnership€as€owner€of€a€shopping€center€inÐ  p ÐLebanon,€Tennessee€against€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.€alleging€breach€of€a€leaseÏcontract.ÌÌà Ø àIn€1968,€J.R.€Freeman,€Trustee€as€lessor,€entered€into€a€lease€agreementÏwith€Kuhn€Brothers€Co.,€Inc.€as€lessee€of€certain€premises€in€a€commercialÏshopping€center€known€as€The€Center€of€Lebanon.€€This€lease€was€to€expire€inÏ1984.€€The€lease€provided€a€guaranteed€minimum€annual€rent€of€$70,000.00,Ïtogether€with€2€ðð%€of€all€gross€receipts€over€$2,333,000.00€per€annum.€€ÌÌà Ø àWal„Mart€acquired€Kuhns€and€the€1968€lease€agreement€was€amended€inÏ1981€with€Freeman,€Trustee€still€as€landlord€and€Wal„Mart€as€lessee.€€In€this€1981Ïamendment€to€the€lease€the€term€thereof€was€extended€from€1984€through€1996.€ÏThe€guaranteed€minimum€rent€was€increased€from€$70,000.00€per€annum€toÏ$136,000.00€per€annum€with€gross€receipts€percentage€rent€decliningÏincrementally€with€increased€gross€receipts.€€The€permitted€"use"€was€changedÏfrom€a€"retail›€promotional€type€store"€to€a€"discount€department€store."€€ÌÌà Ø àBVT€acquired€The€Center€of€Lebanon€from€Freeman€Trustee,€and€in€1985ÏWal„Mart€determined€a€need€to€expand€the€leased€premises.€€This€resulted€in€aÏ1985€amendment€to€the€lease€whereby€the€size€of€Wal„Mart's€premises€was€to€beÏexpanded€from€50,000€square€feet€to€84,000€square€feet€with€the€cost€of€suchÏexpansion€to€be€borne€by€BVT.€€This€necessitated€the€purchase€of€additional€realÏestate€and€the€œbuyout›€by€BVT€of€the€Foodtown€lease€which€was€adjacent€to€theÏexisting€Wal„Mart€€premises.€€Wal„Mart€supplied€the€plot€plans€and€specificationsÏfor€the€expansion€and€BVT€paid€approximately€$1,500,000.00€to€complete€theÏWal„Mart€expansion.ÌÌà Ø àThe€1985€lease€amendment€extended€the€œterm›€œof€the€lease€for›€œnineÏadditional€years€to€2005.€€The€guaranteed€minimum€rent€was€changed€fromÏ$136,000.00€annually€to€$272,000.00€with€an€incremental€reduction€in€percentageÏof€gross€receipts€rental€tied€to€increased€gross€receipts€of€Wal„Mart.Ð ˆ9Ø4A Їà Ø àWal„Mart€was€quite€successful€at€The€Center€of€Lebanon.€€By€1994,€theÏgross„receipts€percentage€rental€by€Wal„Mart€to€BVT€comprised€approximatelyÏ37%€of€the€total€rent€paid€annually.ÌÌà Ø àIn€1994,€Wal„Mart€determined€to€vacate€The€Center€of€Lebanon€andÏrelocate€to€a€new€super€center€to€be€constructed€within€a€short€distance€of€theÏdemised€premises.€€Negotiations€between€BVT€and€Wal„Mart€failed,€and€BVTÏfiled€suit€October€6,€1994€in€anticipatory€breach€of€contract.ÌÌà Ø àOn€May€24,€1995,€over€the€objections€of€BVT,€Wal„Mart€ceased€operationsÏand€vacated€The€Center€of€Lebanon€premises,€continuing€to€pay€the€$272,000Ïannual€minimum€rent.€€Five€months€later€it€opened€a€"Bud's€Discount€City"€in€theÏspace€vacated€by€Wal„Mart.€€"Bud's€Discount€City"€is€wholly€owned€by€Wal„MartÏand€had€generated€from€two€to€three€million€dollars€in€gross€receipts€per€annumÏat€the€time€of€the€trial€of€this€case.ÌÌà Ø àBVT€asserts€that€Wal„Mart€breached€the€express€"use"€clause€of€the€leaseÏand€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€occupancy.€€Non„jury€trial€in€April,€1997Ïresulted€in€an€August€27,€1997€judgment€in€favor€of€BVT€for€compensatoryÏdamages€in€the€amount€of€$2,507,674.00,€together€with€$108,759€plus€interest€forÏfailure€to€include€third€party€receipts,€attorney€fees,€sanctions€and€costs.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€breach€of€the€express€"use"€covenant€and€breach€of€an€impliedÏcovenant€of€continuous€occupancy.€€From€this€judgment€Wal„Mart€has€appealed.€ÏBVT€asserts€error€as€to€the€amount€of€damages€awarded.ÌÌI.à Ø àPROCEEDINGS€IN€THE€TRIAL€COURTÐ ˆ,Ø'2 Ðà Ø àThis€court€marks€with€empathetic€chagrin€the€acrimonious€and€heatedÏnature€of€the€proceedings€below.€€Wal„Mart€complains€with€considerableÏjustification€that€the€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€contained€in€theÏAugust€27,€1997€order€are€inconsistent€with€findings€announced€by€the€court€atÏvarious€stages€of€the€trial€and€appearing€in€the€evidentiary€transcript.€€Because€ofÏthese€inconsistencies,€Wal„Mart€urges€in€its€brief€that€the€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€in€the€August€27,€1997€order€should€be€disregarded€by€thisÏcourt.€€The€law€of€Tennessee,€however,€is€well€settled€to€the€contrary.Ð H9˜4B Їà Ø àCases€predating€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€left€no€room€forÏdoubt€on€this€point,€and€as€this€court€has€observed:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àA€judgment€must€be€reduced€to€writing€in€order€to€be€valid.€ÏIt€is€inchoate,€and€has€no€force€whatever,€until€it€has€been€reduced€toÏwriting€and€entered€on€the€minutes€of€the€court,€and€is€completelyÏwithin€the€power€of€the€judge€or€Chancellor.€€A€judge€may€modify,Ïreverse,€or€make€any€other€change€in€his€judgment€that€he€may€deemÏproper,€until€it€is€entered€on€the€minutes,€and€he€may€then€change,Ïmodify,€vacate€or€amend€it€during€that€term,€unless€the€termÏcontinues€longer€than€thirty€days€after€the€entry€of€the€judgment,€andÏthen€until€the€end€of€the€thirty€days.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòBroadway€Motor€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Fire€Insurance€Co.óó,€12€Tenn.€App.€278,€280€(1930).Ð €Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àThis€rule€survived€the€adoption€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€ÏòòSparkle€Laundry€and€Cleaners,€Inc.€v.€Keltonóó,€595€S.W.2d€88,€93€(Tenn.€App.Ð À Ð1979);€òòEvans€v.€Perkeyóó,€647€S.W.2d€636,€641€(Tenn.€App.€1982).Ð X¨ ÐÌà Ø àAs€observed€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Western€Section:€€"We€do€notÏreview€the€court's€oral€statements,€unless€incorporated€in€a€decree,€but€review€theÏcourt's€order€and€judgments€for€that€is€how€a€Court€speaks."€€òòShelby€v.€Shelbyóó,€696Ð ¸ ÐS.W.2d€360,€361€(Tenn.€App.€1985).ÌÌà Ø àThe€proposed€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€and€the€order€ofÏAugust€27,€1997,€were€prepared€by€the€attorney€for€the€plaintiff€and€adopted€byÏthe€court.€€Prior€to€the€adoption€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€thisÏprocedure€was€an€improper€action€and€reversible€error.€€òòNashville,€ChattanoogaÐ H(˜#) Ðand€St.€Louis€Railway€Co.,€et€al€v.€Priceóó,€125€Tenn.€646,€148€S.W.€219€(Tenn.Ð à)0%+ Ð1911).ÌÌà Ø àThe€adoption€of€Rule€52€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÏmodified€òòPriceóó€and€the€supreme€court€has€held:€€Ð @0+3 ÐÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àAlthough€we€believe€òòPriceóó€was€correctly€decided,€we€think€theÐ Ø1(-5 Ðadoption€of€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€calls€for€modification€of€itsÏholding.€€We€agree€that€the€preparation€of€findings€and€conclusionsÏis€a€high€judicial€function.€€We€are€committed€to€the€requirement€thatÏthe€trial€court's€findings€and€conclusions€be€its€own.€€However,€weÏare€also€aware€that€the€thorough€preparation€of€suggested€findingsÏand€conclusions€by€able€counsel€can€be€of€great€assistance€to€the€trialÏcourt.€€In€an€effort€to€strike€a€balance€between€these€considerations,Ð H9˜4< Ðwe€hold€that€although€it€is€improper€for€the€trial€court€to€requireÏcounsel€to€prepare€findings,€it€is€permissible€and€indeed€sometimesÏdesirable€for€the€trial€court€to€permit€counsel€for€any€party€to€submitÏproposed€findings€and€conclusions.€€Findings€prepared€by€the€trialÏjudge€which€represent€his€independent€labor€are€preferable,€howeverÏwe€do€not€disapprove€of€party„prepared€findings.€€This€is€aÏmodification€of€òòPriceóó€which€we€feel€is€more€consonant€with€theÐ  ` ÐRules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€We€wish€to€point€out€that€before€adoptingÏfindings€prepared€by€counsel,€the€trial€judge€should€carefullyÏexamine€them€to€establish€that€they€accurately€reflect€his€views€andÏconclusions,€and€not€those€of€counsel.€€He€should€also€ascertain€thatÏthey€adequately€dispose€of€all€material€issues,€and€to€assure€thatÏmatters€not€a€proper€part€of€the€determination€have€not€beenÏincluded.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòDelevan„Delta€Corp.€v.€Robertsóó,€611€S.W.2d€51,€52„3€(Tenn.€1981).Ð  ð ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àThe€order€in€this€case€prepared€by€counsel€for€the€plaintiff€was€the€subjectÏof€extensive€discussion€between€counsel€and€the€court€before€it€was€entered.€€AtÏthe€end€of€this€discussion€counsel€for€the€defendant€attempted€to€have€the€courtÏenter€a€simple€order€granting€judgment€without€findings€of€fact€or€conclusions€ofÏlaw.€€The€record€reflects:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àTHE€COURT:€€Now,€what€else,€sir?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àMR.€AGEE:€€That's€all€on€their€proposed€order,€YourÏHonor.€€I€would€tender€to€the€Court€a€draft€order€that€I€would€give€toÏthe€Court€which€„„Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àMR.€WHITE:€€Judge,€we've€never€seen€it.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àTHE€COURT:€€All€right.Ìà8 Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àMR.€COMSTOCK:€€That's€correct.€€But€it's€a€veryÏsimple€order,€and€what€it€really€does€is€[is]€it€allows€all€the€findingsÏthat€the€Court€has€made€on€the€record€to€be€the€Court's€findings,€andÏit€allows€the€order€to€simply€reflect€the€ultimate€decisions€that€areÏbeing€made.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àTHE€COURT:€€Let€me€suggest€this€to€you:€€I€like€Mr.ÏWhite's€order€fine€because€everybody€wanted€the€findings€of€theÏfacts€and€all€of€these€other€issues.€€That's€what€you€wanted€the€CourtÏto€do,€make€specific€findings€of€fact,€and€that's€exactly€what€you€satÏhere€and€asked€me€as€relates€to€this€order€today€that€I€specificallyÏmake€that€finding€of€fact€and€all€these€other€things.€€And€I'veÏaddressed€that€issue,€and€they€are€in€there.€€And€you€have€originallyÏrequested€that,€and€I'm€going€to€hold€you€to€that€request.€€So€Mr.ÏWhite's€order€properly€reflects€what's€been€requested€by€theÏdefendant€in€this€matter.€€So€for€that€reason,€I'm€more€inclined€toÏaccept€Mr.€White's€order,€to€be€an€order,€and€it€also€reflects€theÏfindings€of€fact€by€the€Court.€€Now,€what€else?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àMR.€COMSTOCK:€€May€I€on€my€original€simply€putÏ"Wal„Mart€draft,"€and€then€file€that€with€the€clerk?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àTHE€COURT:€€You€certainly€may.€€Okay.€€Now€„„ÐÐ9 55Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àMR.€COMSTOCK:€€Your€Honor,€that's€all€on€that.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àTHE€COURT:€€All€right.€€Well,€then€the€Court€is€goingÏto€sign€the€order.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àThis€court€recognizes€the€marked€discrepency€between€the€written€findingsÏof€fact€and€the€trial€court's€oral€findings€throughout€the€transcript.€€AlthoughÏpuzzling€in€result,€the€only€conclusion€to€be€drawn€from€the€difference€is€that,€forÏwhatever€reason,€the€court€below€changed€its€mind.ÌÌà Ø àUnder€the€foregoing€rules,€the€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€lawÏreflected€by€the€order€of€August€27,€1997€are€the€only€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€of€the€trial€court.€€They€alone€are€reviewable€on€appeal€underÏRule€13(d)€of€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€with€a€presumption€of€correctnessÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€to€the€contrary.€€òòFoster€v.€Bueóó,€749€S.W.2d€736Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1988).ÌÌà Ø àThe€conclusions€of€law€drawn€by€the€trial€court€are€reviewable€de€novo€onÏappeal€without€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòTennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Ins.€Co.Ð 0€ Ðv.€Mooreóó,€958€S.W.2d€759€(Tenn.€App.€1997).Ð È! ÐÌà Ø àThe€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€of€the€trial€court€reflected€byÏthe€order€of€August€27,€1997€are:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 à(a)à ˆ àThe€lease€at€issue€contains€a€percentage€rent€clause€andÐ (&x!) Ðthe€intent€of€the€parties€at€the€time€the€lease€was€executed€was€thatÏboth€base€rent€and€percentage€rents€would€be€realized€during€theÏterm€of€the€lease;€be€it€provided€by€the€existing€"Wal„Mart"€discountÏdepartment€store,€another€discount€department€store,€or€any€otherÏlawful€use€acceptable€to€the€landlord€that€would€generate€the€sameÏamount€of€percentage€rent€income€that€was€capable€of€beingÏgenerated€by€the€"Wal„Mart"€discount€department€store€that€ceasedÏto€operate€in€the€demised€premises.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àÐ Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 à(b)à ˆ àThe€premises€were€expanded€at€Wal„Mart's€request€andÐ È0,3 Ðaccording€to€Wal„Mart's€plans€as€reflected€in€the€1985€LeaseÏAmendment.€€Although€the€1985€Amendment€extended€the€leaseÏterm€to€twenty€years,€the€increase€in€base€rent€alone€would€not€haveÏamortized€the€cost€of€the€expansion€over€the€twenty€years.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(c)à ˆ àThe€plaintiff€would€not€have€made€the€expenditures€ofÐ (7x29 Ðapproximately€$1.5€million€to€expand€the€premises€except€inÏcontemplation€of€receiving€a€percentage€of€sales€in€addition€to€baseÐ H9˜4; Ðrents.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(d)à ˆ àBud's€is€not€a€"discount€department€store"€asÐ Ð  Ðcontemplated€by€the€parties€at€the€time€they€entered€into€the€lease.€ÏTherefore,€Bud's€does€not€meet€the€requirements€of€the€lease.€€TheÏCourt€bases€this€conclusion€in€part€upon€Wal„Mart's€own€admissionsÏin€its€letters,€communications€and€advertising€both€by€flyer€and€onÏthe€Internet.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(e)à ˆ àGross€sales€in€the€demised€premises€increased€each€yearÐ @  Ðfrom€1981,€the€first€year€Wal„Mart,€Inc.€operated€its€"Wal„Mart"Ïdiscount€department€store€in€the€premises€until€FYE€January€31,Ï1995,€the€last€full€year€that€Wal„Mart€operated€its€"Wal„Mart"Ïdiscount€department€store€in€the€demised€premises.€€Although€theÏthreshold€for€percentage€rent€was€increased€from€$6.825€million€toÏ$18.133€million,€contemporaneous€with€the€1985€Amendment€andÏexpansion,€gross€sales€again€exceeded€the€$18.133€million€thresholdÏwithin€two€years€after€the€expansion€in€1986.€€Percentage€rents€wereÏgenerated€starting€in€FYE€1988€and€increased€every€year€thereafterÏincluding€FYE€January€31,€1995.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(f)à ˆ à"Discount€Department€Store"€is€a€business€term€used€inÐ P Ðthe€retail€industry€which€the€Court€has€no€independent€qualificationÏto€define.€€However,€the€Court€finds€that€the€parties€contemplated€aÏdefinition€more€specific€than€the€broad€combination€of€theÏdefinitions€of€"discount"€and€"department"€found€in€òòWebster'sÐ @ ÐDictionaryóó.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€the€parties€contemplatedÐ P   Ðthat€a€"Discount€Department€Store"€would€posses[s]€theÏcharacteristics€offered€by€plaintiff's€expert,€Wayne€Tomlinson€and,Ïtherefore,€adopts€the€following€definition:€€"a€large,€high„volumeÏmerchandising€establishment€that€(I)€presents€an€accurate€image€toÏthe€consumer€that€it€is€a€discount€department€store,€(ii)€sells€basicallyÏthe€same€type€new€high€quality€soft€and€hard€goods€day€in€and€dayÏout,€(iii)€sells€at€a€discount€and€at€a€minimal€markup,€and€(iv)€is€openÏto€the€public€seven€days€a€week€(usually€9€a.m.€to€9€p.m.€six€daysÏand€Noon€to€5€p.m.€on€Sundays."€€Large€would€mean€approximatelyÏ10,000€square€feet€and€larger€and€high€volume,€would€mean€annualÏsales€greater€than€5€times€its€inventory€value.€€(Typically€betweenÏ150„400/Square€foot€using€1995€published€data).€€It€is€a€store€thatÏcarries€the€same€type€quality€new€goods€from€week€to€week€and€isÏopen€typically€seven€days€a€week,€in€some€instances€twenty€fourÏhours€a€day.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(g)à ˆ àExcept€for€the€square€footage,€the€Bud's€at€LebanonÐ `2°-+ Ðdoes€not€meet€any€of€the€criteria€of€a€"discount€department€store"€asÏcontemplated€by€the€parties.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(h)à ˆ àNo€retail€sales€were€conducted€from€the€premises€for€aÐ  6ð1/ Ðperiod€of€four€months€when€the€"Wal„Mart"€discount€departmentÏstore€ceased€operations€until€the€"Bud's"€operation€began.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÐ Ð9 52 Ðà8 Ø àà 0 à(i)à ˆ àDefendants€have€provided€plaintiff€with€multiple€andÐ ° Ðconflicting€reports€of€gross€sales,€some€years€including€third„partyÏdrug€sales€and€some€years€excluding€third„party€drug€sales.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(j)à ˆ àIt€was€necessary€for€the€plaintiff/lessor€to€employÐ ð@ Ðcounsel€and€otherwise€incur€expenses€in€connection€with€defendantsÏanticipatory€breach€and€subsequent€actions€regarding€the€demisedÏpremises€and€the€subject€lease.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌÓ€Óà Ø à€€€2.à 0 àThe€Court€makes€the€following€conclusions€of€law:Ð @  ÐÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 à(a)à ˆ àThis€is€a€contract€construction€case€and€the€Court€hasÐ Ø(  Ðto€determine€the€intent€of€the€parties€at€the€time€the€contract€wasÏentered€into€from€the€entire€contract€and€construe€the€contract€suchÏthat€its€terms€are€in€harmony€with€each€other.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(b)à ˆ àThe€Bud's€operating€in€the€demised€premises€is€not€aÐ (x Ð"discount€department€store"€as€required€under€the€subject€lease,€and,Ïtherefore,€the€defendants€have€breached€the€"use"€clause€of€theÏsubject€lease.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(c)à ˆ àThere€is€an€implied€covenant€by€the€defendants€toÐ xÈ Ðcontinuously€operate€either€a€discount€department€store,€asÏcontemplated€by€the€parties€in€1985€and€as€previously€described€inÏthis€order,€or€any€other€lawful€business€that€would€make€reasonableÏcommercial€sense€for€the€plaintiff€to€accept.€€The€Court€further€findsÏthat€the€defendants€have€breached€this€covenant€and€that€it€would€beÏreasonable€for€the€landlord€to€withhold€consent€for€the€operation€ofÏa€Bud's€as€a€replacement€tenant.€à D àÐè!8Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(d)à ˆ àThe€defendants€have€improperly€withheld€percentageÐ $X Ðrent€attributable€to€third„party€sales€conducted€within€the€demisedÏpremises.€€Furthermore,€defendants€failed€to€disclose€to€plaintiff€thatÏthey€changed€their€position€relative€to€these€third„party€sales€at€someÏtime€after€the€85€amendment.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(e)à ˆ àDefendants€have€admitted,€pursuant€to€Kandy€Beaver'sÐ h*¸%$ Ðaffidavit€and€deposition€that€they€have€erroneously€deducted€certainÏitems€in€addition€to€third„party€gross€sales€from€gross€receipts€whenÏreporting€and€paying€percentage€rents.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(f)à ˆ àThe€plaintiff€has€been€damaged€as€a€result€of€theÐ ¸/+) Ðdefendants'€breaches€of€the€lease.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 à(g)à ˆ àPer€the€lease€and€pursuant€to€the€Court's€inherentÐ è28., Ðauthority,€given€the€circumstances€of€this€case€regarding€theÏwithholding€of€accurate€gross€receipt€information€by€defendants,€theÏplaintiff€is€entitled€to€audit€the€defendants'€records€to€determine€theÏamount€of€gross€receipts€from€the€demised€premises;€including€third„¼party€drug€sales€and€otherwise,€to€ascertain€the€amount€of€percentageÏrent€that€should€have€been€paid€plaintiff€from€1985€to€present.ÐH9˜42Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 à(h)à ˆ àPursuant€to€the€lease,€Plaintiff€is€entitled€to€attorneys'Ð ° Ðfees€and€expenses.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àBased€upon€the€foregoing€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€the€trialÏcourt€entered€a€compensatory€damage€award€in€the€amount€of€$2,507,674.00,Ïrepresenting€the€present€value€of€lost€future€percentage€rents€for€the€duration€ofÏthe€lease.ÌÌà Ø àThe€August€27,€1997€order€further€provided:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 à5.à ˆ àBy€previous€Order,€this€Court€granted€the€plaintiff'sÐ øH  Ðmotion€for€partial€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€the€defendants'Ïfailure€to€include€gross€receipts€(and€to€pay€the€plaintiff€theirÏrespective€part€of€these€gross€receipts)€of€third„party€tenants,€and,Ïbased€upon€statements€of€counsel€for€both€parties,€a€review€of€theÏfile,€and€the€testimony€before€this€Court,€this€Court€grants€an€awardÏof€$108,759.00€plus€interest€at€10€percent€through€1/31/97,€for€a€totalÏof€$144,689.75€plus€$39.64€per€diem€for€every€day€thereafter€untilÏpaid.€€This€award€is€primarily€based€upon€the€Court's€acceptance€ofÏthe€testimony€of€Sam€Boles,€the€witness€for€the€plaintiff€with€respectÏto€the€calculation€of€these€monies€and€the€interest€on€these€moniesÏfrom€January€1€of€each€of€the€years€referenced€in€trial€Exhibit€B,Ïwhich€is€attached€to€this€Order€and€incorporated€herein€by€reference.€ÏThe€Court€further€awards€attorneys'€fees€in€the€amount€of€$10,125.00Ï(67.5€hours€at€$150/hr.)€plus€expenses€in€the€amount€of€$828.75,€forÏa€total€of€$10,953.75.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àBy€supplemental€order€entered€September€9,€1997€plaintiff€was€awardedÏattorneys'€fees€in€the€amount€of€$170,042.61€for€the€period€through€June€30,€1997Ïand€sanctions€against€defendant€Wal„Mart€in€the€amount€of€$6,240.00,Ïrepresenting€fees€due€to€auditors€for€work€done€in€Bentonville,€Arkansas.ÌÌII.à Ø àISSUES€ON€APPEALà D àÐ ˆ,Ø', Ðà Ø àThe€first€issue€on€appeal€asserted€by€Wal„Mart€is€its€proposition€numberÏone€that€"Wal„Mart's€act€of€ceasing€its€'Wal„Mart€Discount€Store'€operation,€andÏcommencing€its€'Bud's€Discount€City'€operation€is€not€a€breach€of€any€express€orÏimplied€term€of€the€contract."ÌÌà Ø àThis€issue€comprises€the€heart€of€this€case.€€The€trial€court€has€held:€€1)Ï'Bud's€Discount€City'€is€not€a€'discount€department€store'€within€the€meaning€of€theÏ'use'€clause€of€the€lease€agreement€and,€2)€Wal„Mart€breached€an€implied€covenantÐ H9˜4< Ðof€continuous€occupancy€under€the€lease.ÌÌà Ø àGenerally€the€law€recognizes€two€distinct€types€of€implied€contracts:€Ïcontracts€implied€in€fact€and€contracts€implied€in€law,€commonly€referred€to€asÏquasi€contracts.€€òòPaschall's,€Inc.€v.€Dozieróó,€407€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1966).Ð  ` ÐÌà Ø àThe€differences€between€contracts€implied€in€fact€and€contracts€€implied€inÏlaw€was€delineated€by€the€court€of€appeals€in€the€context€of€a€phosphate€mineralÏlease€in€òòWeatherly€v.€American€Agricultural€Chemical€Co.óó,€65€S.W.2d€592€(Tenn.Ð pÀ  ÐApp.€1933).òò€óó€The€court€observed:Ð X ÐÓ€ÓÓ6€Ð„X<àDè“X€Ð†XDè“X6Óà8 Ø àà 0 àIn€none€of€these€provisions€was€the€defendant€expresslyÏobligated€to€mine€and€remove€from€the€complainants'€premises€all€ofÏthe€specified€mineral€within€the€term€of€twenty€years.€€ContractsÏimplied€in€fact€arise€under€circumstances€which,€according€to€theÏordinary€course€of€dealing€and€the€common€understanding€of€men,Ïshow€a€mutual€intention€to€contract.€€Such€an€agreement€may€resultÏas€a€legal€inference€from€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case.€€6ÏR.€C.€L.€587;€13€C.€J.€241.€€"Contracts€implied€in€law,€or€moreÏproperly€quasi€or€constructive€contracts,€are€a€class€of€obligationsÏwhich€are€imposed€or€created€by€law€without€the€assent€of€the€partyÏbound,€on€the€ground€that€they€are€dictated€by€reason€and€justice€andÏwhich€are€allowed€to€be€enforced€by€an€action€ex€contractu."€€13€C.ÏJ.€244.€€With€these€definitions€in€mind,€we€must€determine€whetherÏor€not€such€an€agreement€as€is€insisted€upon€was€implied.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àThe€doctrine€of€duty€upon€the€lessee€of€minerals€to€developÏthe€leased€premises€to€the€mutual€profit€of€himself€and€the€lessor€byÏexercising€reasonable€diligence€has€been€applied€in€many€cases€uponÏthe€theory€of€implied€contract€and€upon€principles€of€equity€andÏjustice;€but€the€court€can€declare€implied€covenants€to€exist€onlyÏwhen€there€is€a€satisfactory€basis€in€the€express€contract€of€theÏparties€which€makes€it€necessary€to€imply€certain€duties€andÏobligations€in€order€to€effect€the€purposes€of€the€parties€to€theÏcontract€made.€€And€before€a€covenant€will€be€implied€in€the€expressÏterms€of€a€contract,€or€in€view€of€the€customs€and€practices€of€theÏbusiness€to€which€the€contract€relates,€it€must€appear€therefrom€thatÏit€was€so€clearly€in€the€contemplation€of€the€parties€that€they€deemedÏit€unnecessary€to€express€it,€or€that€it€is€necessary€to€imply€suchÏcovenant€in€order€to€give€effect€to€the€purpose€of€the€contract€as€aÏwhole.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓWeatherly€v.€American€Agricultural€Chemical€Co.óó,€65€S.W.2d€592,€598€(Tenn.Ð 5à03 ÐApp.€1933).ÌÐ À847 Ðà Ø àThese€general€rules€provide€the€parameters€within€which€the€question€of€theÏexistence€or€nonexistence€of€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€occupancy€mustÏbe€determined.€ÌÌà Ø àIt€is€well€to€observe€at€the€outset€that€although€the€lease€documents€in€issueÏdid€contain€"use"€clauses,€none€contained€express€covenants€of€continuedÏoccupancy.€€Nor€is€the€lessor€attempting€a€right€of€re„entry€pursuant€to€the€useÏclause€as€such€right€is€incorporated€into€the€1968€lease€and€both€the€1981€andÏ1985€amendments.€€Since€Wal„Mart€is€continuing€to€pay€the€$272,000.00€perÏannum€"minimum€rent"€set€by€the€1985€amendment,€it€matters€little€whetherÏ"Bud's€Discount€City"€is€an€operation€in€violation€of€the€"use"€clause€of€the€leaseÏin€the€absence€of€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€occupancy.€€By€the€expressÏterms€of€the€lease€as€amended,€there€is€no€prohibition€against€Wal„Mart€vacatingÏthe€premises€in€its€entirety,€thus€producing€no€gross€receipts€at€all.€€Wal„MartÏwould,€of€course,€be€obligated€under€the€terms€of€the€1985€amendment€to€continueÏpaying€the€$272,000.00€per€year€rental€through€the€end€of€the€term€of€the€lease€inÏ2005.€€The€case€thus€turns€on€whether€or€not€there€is€an€implied€covenant€ofÏcontinuous€occupancy€as€found€by€the€trial€court€and€whether€or€not€"Bud'sÏDiscount€City"€qualifies€as€a€tenant€under€such€an€implied€covenant.ÌÌà Ø àThis€inquiry€begins€with€òòKroger€v.€Chemical€Securities€Co.óó,€526€S.W.2dÐ $à( Ð468€(Tenn.€1975).ÌÌà Ø àIn€òòKrogeróó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€correctly€noted€the€generalÐ X)¨$. Ðdisfavor€accorded€to€such€implied€covenants,€saying:€ñìñÌñìññíñÓ€ÓñíññîñÌñîññíñÓ€Óñíñà8 Ø à.€.€.€such€implied€covenants€must€arise€from€the€terms€of€the€leaseÏitself.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àOne€clause€which€might,€arguably,€support€such€covenants€isÏthe€percentage€rental€clause.€€However€the€Court€of€Appeals€did€notÏrely€on€this€provision€in€reaching€its€conclusion,€and€considering€theÏsubstantial€sum€set€as€the€base€rental€and€the€small€and€speculativeÏnature€of€the€override,€we€likewise€do€not€find€that€clauseÏdeterminative.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓKroger€Co.€v.€Chemical€Securities€Co.óó,€526€S.W.2d€468,€471„72€(Tenn.€1975).€Ð (7x2< ÐFirst€and€foremost€among€circumstances€supporting€the€implied€covenant€is€aÐ À84> Ðpercentage€rental€clause€such€as€exists€in€the€case€at€bar.€€The€òòKrogeróó€courtÐ ° Ðrecognized€but€distinguished€òòSlidell€Investment€Co.,€Inc.€v.€City€Product€Corp.,ò òÐ H˜ Ðó óóó202€S.2d€323€(La.€App.€1967)€involving€a€substantial€percentage€override€of€theÐ à0 Ð"minimum€rent"€under€the€lease.ÌÌà Ø àWe€begin€this€discussion€by€stating€that:€€".€.€.€The€decision€whether€toÏimply€a€covenant€of€continuous€operation€must€be€evaluated€at€the€time€the€partiesÏsigned€the€agreement."€€òòNalle€v.€Taco€Bell€Corpóó.,€914€S.W.2d€685,€688€(Tex.€App.Ð Ø(  Ð1996).€€The€critical€time€is€June€of€1985€when€the€parties€executed€the€"thirdÏamendment€to€lease".ÌÌà Ø àIn€this€1985€amendment,Ìà Ø à(1)à 0 àBVT€agreed€at€the€request€of€the€Wal„Mart€to€expand€the€Wal„MartÐ Ð  Ðpremises€from€50,000€to€84,000€square€feet.€€This€was€accomplished€at€a€cost€toÏthe€BVT€of€approximately€$1,500,000.00.Ìà Ø à(2)à 0 àThe€Wal„Mart€agreed€to€operate€a€"discount€department€store"€on€theÐ ˜è Ðpremises.Ìà Ø à(3)à 0 àThe€term€of€the€lease€was€extended€for€an€additional€nine€years€toÐ È" Ðexpire€January€31,€2005.Ìà Ø à(4)à 0 àThe€"fixed€annual€minimum€rent"€was€increased€from€$136,000.00Ð ø"H& Ðto€$272,000.00.Ìà Ø à(5)à 0 àThe€percentage€rent€was€set€at€one€and€one„half€percent€of€grossÐ (&x!* Ðreceipts€in€excess€of€$18,133,333.00€to€and€including€$20,000,000.00€in€grossÏreceipts€and€thereafter€one€percent€of€gross€receipts€in€excess€of€$20,000,000.00.ÌÌà Ø àThe€Court€of€Appeals€of€Idaho€stated€in€synopsis€the€rules€applicable€toÏlease€provisions€similar€to€the€one€agreed€to€by€BVT€and€Wal„Mart.ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 à[5]à < àThe€major€prerequisite€for€a€finding€of€an€impliedÐ ¸/+6 Ðcovenant€in€a€percentage€rental€agreement€is€that€the€stipulatedÏminimum€rental€must€not€be€substantial€consideration.€€òòSee€ArcherÐ Ø1(-8 Ðv.€Mountain€Fuel€Supply€Coóó.,€supra,€102€Idaho€at€„„„€„€„„„,€642€P.2dÐ è28.9 Ð943;€òòProfessional€Building€of€Eureka€v.€Anita€Frocks,€Incóó.,€178Ð ø3H/: ÐCal.App.2d€276,€2€Cal.Rptr.€914€(1960);€òòLippman€v.€Sears€RoebuckÐ 5X0; Ð&€Co.óó,€44€Cal.2d€136,€280€P.2d€775€(1955);€òòMasciotra€v.€Harlowóó,Ð 6h1< Ð105€Cal.App.3d€376,€233€P.2d€586€(1951);€òòKroger€v.€Bonny€Corpóó.,Ð (7x2= Ðsupra;€òòStop€&€Shop,€Inc.€v.€Ganemóó,€347€Mass.€697,€200€N.E.2d€248Ð 88ˆ3> Ð(1964);€òòPBJ€Company,€Inc.€v.€Ben€Duthler,€Incóó.,€89€Mich.App.€767,Ð H9˜4? Ð282€N.W.2d€216€(1979);€òòBobenal€Investment€Inc.€v.€Giant€SuperÐ ° ÐMarkets,€Inc.óó,€79€Mich.App.€31,€260€N.W.2d€915€(1977);€òòCrestwoodÐ À ÐPlaza,€Inc.€v.€Kroger€Co.óó,€520€S.W.2d€93€(Mo.App.1974);€òòKretch€v.Ð Ð  ÐStark,€óó193€N.E.2d€307€(Ohio€Com.Pl.1962);€òòBrown€v.€Safewayóó,Ð à0 Ðsupra.€€Parol€evidence€is€properly€admitted€to€determine€whetherÏminimum€rentals€are€substantial.€€òòWerry€v.€Phillips€Petroleum€Coóó.,Ð  P Ð97€Idaho€130,€135,€540€P.2d€792,€797€(1975);€òòAnita€Frocks,€Incóó.,Ð  ` Ð178€Ca.App.2d€at€278„79,€2€Cal.Rptr.€at€916;€òòLippmanóó,€280€P.2d€atÐ  p Ð780„€81;€òòPBJ€Companyóó,€282€N.W.2d€at€218.€€The€burden€of€showingÐ 0 € Ða€disparity€between€the€fixed€minimum€rent€and€fair€rental€valueÏsufficient€to€furnish€grounds€for€implying€a€covenant€is€on€the€lessor.€ÏòòStop€&€Shop€Incóó.,€200€N.E.2d€at€252.Ð`° Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓBastian€v.€Albertson's,€Inc.óó,€643€P.2d€1079,€1082„1083€(Idaho€1982).Ð €Ð  ÐÌà Ø àWe€must€first€determine€whether€or€not€the€$272,000.00€per€year€isÏ"substantial€consideration."ÌÌà Ø àAt€the€time€of€the€June,€1985€amendment€to€the€lease,€all€parties€were€awareÏof€the€prior€history€of€percentage€rental€experience€under€the€lease.ÌÌÔ*wƒ N ddd Xdd Xdd X€T$€T$wÔÔ,edd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,„dd ÔÔ,îdd ÔÔ,°dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  @ ÐÔ€`l¼¼\ÔFiscal€YearÐ  ¤ô ÐAdjusted€SalesÐ  ¤ô ÐBaseÐ  ¤ô  ÐPercentÐ  ¤ô! ÐAmount€PaidÐ 7- ¤ô" ôž@1981‰ôž@‰7Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1981Ð 7-+Ô $# ôž@1981 ôž@ 7ÐÐ  Ô $$ ÐÐ  Ô $% ÐÐ  Ô $& ÐÐ 7- Ô $' øž@1982‰øž@‰7Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1982€Ð _U+"T( øž@1982 øž@ ö(\`42<Œ  PKqA 18133333.00 PKqA >Ð1.50%Ð ;1 <Œ  ×£p=ÏÓ@20284.41‰×£p=ÏÓ@‰;Ѐ€20,284.41Ð ;1/<Œ  ×£p=ÏÓ@20284.41 ×£p=ÏÓ@ ;Ð1990€TotalÐ  €Ð  ÐÐ  €Ð  ÐÐ  €Ð  ÐÐ ;1 €Ð  ×£p=ÏÓ@20284.41‰×£p=ÏÓ@‰;Ѐ€20,284.41Ð ]S/€Ð  ×£p=ÏÓ@20284.41 ×£p=ÏÓ@ Ÿ@1991‰Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1991Ð `V+°  Ÿ@1991 Ÿ@ q= Ú’sA 20524449.94‰q= Ú’sA‰`Ð20,524,449.94Ð g]2°  q= Ú’sA 20524449.94 q= Ú’sA PKqA 18133333.00‰PKqA‰gÐ18,133,333.00Ð >42°  PKqA 18133333.00 PKqA >Ð1.50%Ð ;1 °  XÛ@28000.00‰XÛ@‰;Ѐ€28,000.00Ð ]S/°  XÛ@28000.00 XÛ@ Ÿ@1991‰Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1991€Ð 7-+à0  Ÿ@1991 Ÿ@ 7ÐÐ >4 à0  ÐsA 20000000.00‰ÐsA‰>Ð20,000,000.00Ð >42à0 ! ÐsA 20000000.00 ÐsA >Ð1.00%Ð :0 à0 "  ×£p}|´@5244.49‰ ×£p}|´@‰:Ѐ€€€5,244.49Ð :0.à0 #  ×£p}|´@5244.49  ×£p}|´@ :Ð1991€TotalÐ  `$ ÐÐ  `% ÐÐ  `& ÐÐ ;1 `' áz®;à@33244.49‰áz®;à@‰;Ѐ€33,244.49Ð ]S/`( áz®;à@33244.49 áz®;à@  Ÿ@1992‰ Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1992Ð `V+@)  Ÿ@1992  Ÿ@ ö(\÷_uA 22409535.46‰ö(\÷_uA‰`Ð22,409,535.46Ð g]2@* ö(\÷_uA 22409535.46 ö(\÷_uA PKqA 18133333.00‰PKqA‰gÐ18,133,333.00Ð >42@+ PKqA 18133333.00 PKqA >Ð1.50%Ð ;1 @, XÛ@28000.00‰XÛ@‰;Ѐ€28,000.00Ð ]S/@- XÛ@28000.00 XÛ@  Ÿ@1992‰ Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1992Ð 7-+pÀ.  Ÿ@1992  Ÿ@ 7ÐÐ >4 pÀ/ ÐsA 20000000.00‰ÐsA‰>Ð20,000,000.00Ð >42pÀ0 ÐsA 20000000.00 ÐsA >Ð1.00%Ð ;1 pÀ1 ¤p= ׇ×@24095.36‰¤p= ׇ×@‰;Ѐ€24,095.36Ð ;1/pÀ2 ¤p= ׇ×@24095.36 ¤p= ׇ×@ ;Ð1992€TotalÐ   ð3 ÐÐ   ð4 ÐÐ   ð5 ÐÐ ;1  ð6 R¸…ëoé@52095.36‰R¸…ëoé@‰;Ѐ€52,095.36Ð ]S/ ð7 R¸…ëoé@52095.36 R¸…ëoé@ $Ÿ@1993‰$Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1993Ð `V+Ð 8 $Ÿ@1993 $Ÿ@ `V3xA 25376102.00‰`V3xA‰`Ð25,376,102.00Ð g]2Ð 9 `V3xA 25376102.00 `V3xA PKqA 18133333.00‰PKqA‰gÐ18,133,333.00Ð >42Ð : PKqA 18133333.00 PKqA >Ð1.50%Ð ;1 Ð ; XÛ@28000.00‰XÛ@‰;Ѐ€28,000.00Ð ]S/Ð < XÛ@28000.00 XÛ@ $Ÿ@1993‰$Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1993Ð 7-+P= $Ÿ@1993 $Ÿ@ 7ÐÐ >4 P> ÐsA 20000000.00‰ÐsA‰>Ð20,000,000.00Ð >42P? ÐsA 20000000.00 ÐsA >Ð1.00%Ð ;1 P@ = ×£ @ê@53761.02‰= ×£ @ê@‰;Ѐ€53,761.02Ð ;1/PA = ×£ @ê@53761.02 = ×£ @ê@ ;Ð1993€TotalÐ  0€B ÐÐ  0€C ÐÐ  0€D ÐÐ ;1 0€E …ëQöó@81761.02‰…ëQöó@‰;Ѐ€81,761.02Ð ]S/0€F …ëQöó@81761.02 …ëQöó@ (Ÿ@1994‰(Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1994Ð `V+`°G (Ÿ@1994 (Ÿ@ 0xyA 26298243.00‰0xyA‰`Ð26,298,243.00Ð g]2`°H 0xyA 26298243.00 0xyA PKqA 18133333.00‰PKqA‰gÐ18,133,333.00Ð >42`°I PKqA 18133333.00 PKqA >Ð1.50%Ð ;1 `°J XÛ@28000.00‰XÛ@‰;Ѐ€28,000.00Ð ]S/`°K XÛ@28000.00 XÛ@ (Ÿ@1994‰(Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1994Ð 7-+àL (Ÿ@1994 (Ÿ@ 7ÐÐ >4 àM ÐsA 20000000.00‰ÐsA‰>Ð20,000,000.00Ð >42àN ÐsA 20000000.00 ÐsA >Ð1.00%Ð ;1 àO )\ÂÍÀî@62982.43‰)\ÂÍÀî@‰;Ѐ€62,982.43Ð ;1/àP )\ÂÍÀî@62982.43 )\ÂÍÀî@ ;Ð1994€TotalÐ  ÀQ ÐÐ  ÀR ÐÐ  ÀS ÐÐ ;1 ÀT ®Gáf6ö@90982.43‰®Gáf6ö@‰;Ѐ€90,982.43Ð ]S/ÀU ®Gáf6ö@90982.43 ®Gáf6ö@ ,Ÿ@1995‰,Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1995Ð `V+ð@V ,Ÿ@1995 ,Ÿ@ )\®¯.|A 29551354.91‰)\®¯.|A‰`Ð29,551,354.91Ð g]2ð@W )\®¯.|A 29551354.91 )\®¯.|A PKqA 18133333.00‰PKqA‰gÐ18,133,333.00Ð >42ð@X PKqA 18133333.00 PKqA >Ð1.50%Ð ;1 ð@Y XÛ@28000.00‰XÛ@‰;Ѐ€28,000.00Ð ]S/ð@Z XÛ@28000.00 XÛ@ ,Ÿ@1995‰,Ÿ@‰]Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€1995Ð 7-+ p[ ,Ÿ@1995 ,Ÿ@ 7ÐÐ >4  p\ ÐsA 20000000.00‰ÐsA‰>Ð20,000,000.00Ð >42 p] ÐsA 20000000.00 ÐsA >Ð1.00%Ð ;1  p^ ÍÌÌ̘Q÷@95513.55‰ÍÌÌ̘Q÷@‰;Ѐ€95,513.55Ð ;1/ p_ ÍÌÌ̘Q÷@95513.55 ÍÌÌ̘Q÷@ ;Ð1995€TotalÐ  P! ` ÐÐ  P! a ÐÐ  P! b ÐÐ <2 P! c ÍÌÌ̘'þ@ 123513.55‰ÍÌÌ̘'þ@‰<Ð123,513.55Ð@64P! d ÍÌÌ̘'þ@ 123513.55  ÍÌÌ̘'þ@ @Ð̀̀ÌÔ€¼\¼`lÔà Ø àThe€term€"fixed€annual€minimum€rent"€used€in€the€1985€amendment€toÐ Ú$* j Ðdescribe€the€$272,000.00€per€annum€base€rental€has€no€fixed€legal€meaning.€€AsÏthe€Supreme€Court€of€California€has€held:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àThe€term€"minimum€monthly€payments"€has€no€fixed€legalÏsignificance;€its€meaning€can€be€ascertained€only€by€reference€to€theÏcircumstances€in€which€the€lease€was€executed.€€Extrinsic€evidence,Ïtherefore,€was€properly€admitted€to€show€those€circumstances.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àSears€maintains€that€the€evidence€does€not€support€the€finding€thatÏ$285€per€month€"was€intended€to€be€and€was,€in€fact,€a€nominalÏrental€and€was€not€a€substantial€or€adequate€minimum€rental."€ÏOrdinarily,€when€used€in€connection€with€monetary€obligations,€theÏword€"nominal"€denotes€"a€trifling€sum"€(Black's€Law€Dic.€4th€Ed.Ï1951,€p.€469),€and€Sears€is€correct€in€the€contention€that€more€thanÏthat€amount€was€required€by€the€lease.€€But€a€finding€that,€within€theÏcontemplation€of€the€parties,€$285€per€month€was€not€a€substantialÏand€adequate€minimum€rent€to€be€paid€in€lieu€of€a€percentage€of€theÏsales€is€a€sufficient€basis€for€a€determination€that€Sears€impliedlyÏcovenanted€to€use€the€demised€premises€for€the€sale€€of€merchandiseÐ ’9â4 Ðduring€the€entire€term€of€the€lease.€€It€was€not€necessary€that€the€trialÏcourt€go€farther,€and€the€characterization€of€the€minimum€rent€asÏnominal€is€superfluous.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòLippman€v.€Sears€Roebuck€&€Co.óó,€280€P.2d€775,€780„781€(Cal.€1955).Ð ð@ ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àThe€"substantial„insubstantial"€question€is€tied€closely€to€market€value€inÏthe€law€governing€implied€covenants€of€continuous€occupancy.ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiff€contends€that€notwithstanding€the€interest€of€theÏlessors€in€having€the€premises€operated€so€as€to€give€it€the€benefit€ofÏpossible€percentage€rent,€the€absence€of€an€express€requirement€toÏoperate€together€with€a€more€than€nominal€minimum€rent€exclude€theÏimplication€of€a€covenant€to€continue€operations.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àThis€may€state€too€broad€a€rule.€€For€even€if€there€is€a€moreÏthan€nominal€minimum€rent,€other€circumstances€such€as€that€theÏfixed€rent€is€significantly€below€the€fair€rental€value€of€the€propertyÏmight€justify€the€conclusion€that€the€parties€intended€that€the€lessorsÏhave€the€benefit€of€the€percentage€rent€throughout€the€term.€€ò òòòÐh¸Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌó óÓ€ÓStop€&€Shop,€Inc.€v.€Ganemóó,€200€N.E.2d€248,€251€(Mass.€1964).€Ð „Ô ÐÌà Ø àThe€evidence€in€this€case€indicates€that€the€$272,000.00€per€annumÏminimum€rent€was€well€below€the€fair€market€rental€in€Lebanon€and€theÏsurrounding€areas€at€the€time€the€parties€agreed€to€the€1985€amendment.€ÏConverted€to€square€foot€rental€the€base€rent€paid€by€Wal„Mart€in€this€case€wasÏ$3.40€per€square€foot.€€The€proof€showed€that€the€market€value€in€Lebanon€andÏthe€surrounding€areas€ranged€from€$4.59€to€$5.40€per€square€foot.€€The€recordÏfurther€shows€that€the€$136,000.00€per€annum€increase€in€the€base€rent€standingÏalone€would€be€insufficient€to€amortize€the€$1,500,000.00€cost€of€expansion€of€theÏWal„Mart€leased€property€which€expansion€was€accomplished€at€the€request€ofÏWal„Mart€and€paid€for€by€BVT.ÌÌà Ø àIn€òòFirst€American€Bank€&€Trust€Co.€v.€Safeway€Stores,€Inc.óó,€729€P.2d€938Ð <0Œ+1 Ð(Ariz.€App.€1986),€the€trial€court€made€the€following€pertinent€findings€of€fact:ñïñÌñïññðñÓ€ÓñðññññÌññññðñÓ€Óñðñà8 Ø à€€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€four€gentlemen€who€negotiated€theÏlease€on€behalf€of€Betz€were€experienced€shopping€centerÏdevelopers.€€It€also€made€the€following€pertinent€findings€of€fact:Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!à16.à ñ àThe€base€rent€of€$1.46€per€square€foot€per€yearÐ ¬7ü29 Ðwas€not€in€itself€a€fair,€adequate,€or€market€rent€whenÏthe€lease€was€made.ÐÌ95;0 ¤0 ¤ Їà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!à17.à ñ àDefendant€has€continued€to€pay€the€base€rent,Ð ° Ðwhich€amounts€to€$2,500€per€month,€but€has€generatedÏand€paid€no€percentage€rents€for€the€period€fromÏDecember€24,€1983,€to€date.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÓ  ÓÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!à19.à ñ àA€covenant€of€continuous€operation€arises€fromÐ  p Ðand€is€implied€by€the€language€and€the€provisions€ofÏthe€lease,€particularly€the€clauses€providing€forÏpercentage€rent,€requiring€the€landlord€to€build€to€suitÏas€a€grocery€store€(paragraph€5),€and€restrictingÏcompetition€in€the€shopping€center€(paragraph€14)€andÏon€adjacent€property€(paragraph€29)€and€it€appearsÏfrom€the€language€of€the€lease€that€Defendant'sÏcontinuous€operation€was€so€clearly€within€theÏcontemplation€of€the€parties€that€they€deemed€itÏunnecessary€to€express€it.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!à20.à ñ àThe€subject€of€continuous€operation€was€neverÐ à0 Ðdiscussed€between€the€parties€and€is€not€completelyÏcovered€by€the€lease.€€A€covenant€of€continuousÏoperation€would€have€been€made€or€required€by€theÏlandlord€if€attention€had€been€called€to€it.€.€.€.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌÓ€Ó729€P.2d€938,€940.ÌÌà Ø àThe€òòSafewayóó€court,€adopting€the€same€factors€to€be€considered€on€theÐ p"À Ðquestion€of€implied€covenants€of€continuous€operations€relied€upon€by€òòLippmanÐ $X Ðv.€Sears€Roebuck€Co.óó,€280€P.2d€775,€779€(Cal.€1955),€stated€the€following:Ð  %ð ! ÐÓ€Óà8 Ø à(1)€the€implication€must€arise€from€the€language€used€...;€(2)€it€mustÏappear€from€the€language€used€that€it€was€so€clearly€within€theÏcontemplation€of€the€parties€that€they€deemed€it€unnecessary€toÏexpress€it;€(3)€implied€covenants€can€only€be€justified€on€the€groundsÏof€legal€necessity;€(4)€a€promise€can€be€implied€only€where€it€can€beÏrightfully€assumed€that€it€would€have€been€made€if€attention€hadÏbeen€called€to€it;€(5)€there€can€be€no€implied€covenant€where€theÏsubject€is€completely€covered€by€the€contract.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓSafewayóó,€729€P.2d€938,€940€(Ariz.€App.€1986).Ð È0,, ÐÌà Ø àWith€these€factors€in€mind€the€òòSafewayóó€court€concluded:Ð ø3H/0 ÐÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àSafeway€contends€that€the€testimony€of€Betz'€expert€appraisalÏwitness€does€not€support€the€trial€court's€conclusion€that€the€base€rentÏwas€inadequate€and€that€the€provision€of€the€lease€allowing€SafewayÏto€assign€the€lease€precludes€the€trial€court€from€finding€the€existenceÏof€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€operation.€€We€do€not€agree.€Ð Ð9 56 ÐThe€expert€witness€unequivocally€testified€that€the€base€rent€was€notÏequal€to€the€fair€rental€value€of€the€premises€leased€to€Safeway.€€HeÏtestified€that€the€percentage€clause€of€the€lease€had€to€be€consideredÏin€calculating€the€fair€rental€value€of€the€property€and,€absent€theÏpercentage€provisions,€the€monthly€minimum€rental€was€notÏsufficient€to€satisfy€the€obligations€that€the€landlord€would€incur€inÏfinancing€the€construction€and€development€of€the€property.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø à€€à 0 àThe€court€found€that€there€was€no€incongruity€betweenÐ 0 € Ðparagraph€13€of€the€lease,€which€allowed€Safeway€to€sublet€andÏassign€the€lease,€and€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€operation.€ÏSafeway€argues€that€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€operation€isÏrepugnant€to€the€provision€of€the€lease€allowing€it€to€assign€the€entireÏlease.€€On€that€issue,€we€agree€with€the€conclusion€of€law€made€byÏthe€trial€court:Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!à€€€€€The€presence€of€a€right€to€assign€or€sublet€is€notÏnecessarily€inconsistent€with€an€implied€covenant€ofÏcontinuous€operation.€€The€two€covenants€can€beÏharmonized€to€permit€subletting€or€assignment€to€aÏbusiness€of€the€same€character.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌòòÓ€ÓSafewayóó,€729€P.2d€938,€940„41€(Ariz.€App.€1986).Ð ` ÐÌà Ø àThe€"risk€sharing€factor"€inherent€in€a€percentage€rental€lease€is€a€part€of€theÏconsideration€mutually€agreed€to€between€the€parties:ÌñòñÓ€ÓñòññòññòññôñÓ€ÓñôñÌñôññóñÓ€Óñóññôñà8 Ø àà 0 àThe€issue€of€whether€there€is€an€implied€covenant€of€continuedÏoperation€arises€because€the€lease€did€not€fix€the€rent,€but€guaranteedÏa€minimum€payment€plus€a€percentage€based€upon€the€gasolineÏdelivered.€€In€having€a€percentage€lease,€the€parties€contemplated€aÏlengthy€association€(20€years)€during€which€rents€would€periodicallyÏbe€established€by€the€market€place.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àA€percentage€lease€provides€a€lessor€with€a€hedge€againstÏinflation€and€automatically€adjusts€the€rents€if€the€location€becomesÏmore€valuable.€(òòResolving€Disputes€Under€Percentage€Leasesóó€(1967)Ð -`(( Ð51€Minn.L.R.€1139,€1139;€see€also€òòPowell€on€Real€Propertyóó€(1986)Ð  .p)) Ðvol.€2,€ðð€242[1],€pp.€372.15„372.20.)€€It€is€advantageous€to€the€lesseeÏif€the€"location€proves€undesirable€or€his€enterprise€provesÏunsuccessful."€€(òòId.óó)€€Thus,€both€parties€share€in€the€inherentÐ P1 ,, Ðbusiness€risk.€€(51€Minn.L.R.,€òòsupraóó,€at€p.€1150,€fn.€62.)€€InherentÐ `2°-- Ðwithin€all€percentage€leases€is€the€fundamental€idea€that€the€businessÏmust€continually€operate€if€it€is€to€be€successful.€€To€make€aÏcommercial€lease€mutually€profitable€when€the€rent€is€a€minimumÏplus€a€percentage,€or€is€based€totally€on€a€percentage,€a€covenant€toÏoperate€in€good€faith€will€be€implied€into€the€contract€if€theÏminimum€rent€is€not€substantial.€€(òòLippman€v.€Sears,€Roebuck€&€Co.óóÐ À843 Ð(1955)€44€Cal.2d€136,€280€P.2d€775.)ÐÐ9 54Ø ü!Ø ü! Їà8 Ø àà 0 àIn€interpreting€contracts,€"[t]he€whole€of€a€contract€is€to€beÏtaken€together,€so€as€to€give€effect€to€every€part€.€.€.€each€clauseÏhelping€to€interpret€the€other."€€(Civ.Code,€ðð€1641.)€€Further,Ïcontracts€are€to€be€interpreted€so€as€to€make€them€reasonable€withoutÏviolating€the€intention€of€the€parties.€€(Civ.Code,€ðð€1643.)€€ToÏeffectuate€the€intent€of€the€parties,€implied€covenants€will€be€foundÏif€after€examining€the€contract€as€a€whole€it€is€so€obvious€that€theÏparties€had€no€reason€to€state€the€covenant,€the€implication€arisesÏfrom€the€language€of€the€agreement,€and€there€is€a€legal€necessity.€Ï(òòLippman,€supraóó,€44€Cal.2d€at€p.€142,€280€P.2d€775.)€€A€covenant€ofÐ @  Ðcontinued€operation€can€be€implied€into€commercial€leasesÏcontaining€percentage€rental€provisions€in€order€for€the€lessor€toÏreceive€that€for€which€the€lessor€bargained.€Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓCollege€Block€v.€Atlantic€Richfield€Co.óó,€254€Cal.Rptr.€179,€182€(Cal.€App.€2dÐ à Ð1988).ÌÌà Ø àOf€similar€import€though€in€the€context€of€summary€judgment€is€òòLeeds€v.Ð X¨ ÐAlpha€Beta€Co.óó,€75€Cal.Rptr.2d€162€(Cal.€1998)€wherein€the€court€holds:Ð ð@ ÐÓ€Óà8 Ø àThe€lease€required€the€property€owner€to€build€a€supermarketÏpursuant€to€Alpha€Beta's€design.€€The€parties€agreed€to€a€long€termÏlease€during€which€the€rent€was€primarily€based€on€a€percentage€ofÏsales.€€Moreover,€as€the€anchor€tenant,€Alpha€Beta's€continuedÏbusiness€operation€was€important€in€ways€other€than€its€increasedÏrental€payments.€€Abandonment€of€the€premises€could€certainly€beÏfound€to€deny€the€landlord€the€benefit€of€its€bargain.€€Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌ75€Cal.Rptr.2d€162,€164€(Cal.€1998).ÌÓ€ÓÌà Ø àThe€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€of€Kentucky€inÏòòLagrew,€et€al€v.€Hooks„SupeRx,€Inc.óó,€further€refined€the€òòBastianóó€factors:Ð H(˜#% ÐÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àTo€determine€whether€to€imply€a€covenant€of€continuousÏoperation,€the€courts€look€to€the€terms€of€the€lease€and€theÏsurrounding€circumstances.€€Generally,€the€courts€take€severalÏfactors€into€account:€€(1)€whether€base€rent€is€below€market€value,Ï(2)€whether€percentage€payments€are€substantial€in€relation€to€baseÏrent,€(3)€whether€the€term€of€the€lease€is€lengthy,€(4)€whether€theÏtenant€may€sublet,€(5)€whether€the€tenant€has€rights€to€fixtures,€andÏ(6)€whether€the€lease€contains€a€noncompetitive€provision.€Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòLagrew,€et€al€v.€Hooks€SupeRx,€Incò ò.ó óóó,€905€F.Supp.€401,€405€(E.D.€Ky.€1995).Ð p3À.0 ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àThese€factors€were€recently€applied€by€the€Appellate€Court€of€ConnecticutÏin€òòPequot€Spring€Water€Co.€v.€Brunelle,€et€alóó,€698€A.2d€920€(Conn.€App.€Ct.Ð ²735 Ð1997)€in€declaring€the€existence€of€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€operations.€Ð J9š47 ÐThe€Supreme€Court€of€Connecticut€granted€an€application€to€appeal€in€theÏòòBrunelleóó€case€on€September€30,€1997€(701€A.2d€658),€but€the€case€was€settledÐ H˜ Ðbefore€argument€in€March,€1998€and€the€appeal€withdrawn.€òòò ò€óóó óÐ à0 ÐÌà Ø àThe€first€three€factors€of€òòLagrewóó€are€well€established€in€this€case€as€the€baseÐ  c Ðrent€is€below€market€value,€the€percentage€payments€are€substantial€in€relation€toÏthe€base€rent,€and€the€term€of€the€lease€is€lengthy.ÌÌà Ø àThe€fourth€òòLagrewóó€factor€is€"whether€the€tenant€may€sublet".€€Wal„MartÐ sà  Ðmay€do€so€but€under€an€even€more€restrictive€basis€than€is€set€forth€in€òòLagrewóó.€Ð  [ ÐParagraph€1(c)€of€the€1985€amendment€to€the€lease€must€be€read€in€conjunctionÏwith€the€"assign€or€subletting"€provisions€on€page€six€of€the€original€Big€K€leaseÏsince€such€previous€provision€was€incorporated€by€reference€in€the€1985Ïamendment.ÌÌà Ø àParagraph€1(c)€of€the€1985€amendment€provides:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àIt€is€understood€and€agreed€that€the€Demised€Premises€being€leasedÏshall€be€used€by€lessee€in€the€operation€of€a€discount€departmentÏstore,€but€Lessor€agrees€that€the€Demised€Premises€may€be€used€forÏany€lawful€purpose,€except€for€any€purpose€which€is€in€conflict€orÏcompetition€with€the€Cowan's€lease€(apparel)€and€except€for€aÏgrocery€store€or€supermarket;€any€use€by€Lessee€other€than€as€aÏdiscount€department€store€shall€require€the€prior€written€approval€ofÏLessor,€which€approval€shall€not€be€unreasonably€withheld€except€inÏthe€case€of€prohibited€uses€aforesaid.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àThe€assign€or€subletting€provision€of€the€original€Big€K€lease€provides:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àThe€Lessee€covenants€not€to€assign,€mortgage€or€encumber€thisÏagreement€or€sublet€or€use€or€permit€the€demised€premises,€or€anyÏpart€thereof,€to€be€used€by€others€without€the€prior€written€consentÏof€the€Lessor,€which€consent€shall€not€be€unreasonably€withheld.€ÏHowever,€Lessor€expressly€agrees€that€Lessee€may,€without€Lessor'sÏconsent,€sublease€or€assign€this€lease€to€an€affiliate€or€subsidiary.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àThere€has€been€no€consent€at€all€by€BVT€and€thus€the€right€to€subleaseÏwithout€consent€to€an€affiliate€or€subsidiary€as€provided€in€the€"assign€orÏsubletting"€provision€of€the€original€lease€is€restricted€by€the€section€1(c)€provisionÏof€the€1985€amendment€prohibiting€use€other€than€as€"a€discount€departmentÏstore".Ð K9›4= Їà Ø àGiven€these€circumstances,€the€discussion€in€òòLagrewóó€is€particularlyÐ ° Ðpertinent:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àFourth,€while€the€limited€sublease€provision€theoreticallyÏsupports€SupeRx's€contention€that€the€lease€does€not€contemplateÏcontinuous€operation€by€the€lessee,€the€sublease€term€is€so€narrowlyÏtailored€that€it€implies€that€some€suitable€replacement€business€wouldÏoccupy€the€leased€space€if€not€SupeRx.€€Thus,€a€more€preciseÏstatement€of€the€implied€covenant€is€that€the€lessee,€òòor€some€suitableÐ 0 €  Ðsublesseeóó,€will€continuously€operate€on€the€premises.Ð@ Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àDefendants€attempt€to€persuade€the€Court€that€their€right€toÏsublease€was€not€narrowly€tailored€and€that€the€landlord'sÏwillingness€to€include€this€provision€negates€a€finding€of€an€impliedÏcovenant.€€SupeRx€was€prohibited€from€subleasing€to€a€food€store,Ïdepartment€store,€variety€store,€skating€rink,€beer€tavern,€liquor€store,Ïdiscount€store,€or€any€other€business€which€would€conflict€with€theÏexclusive€rights€granted€by€the€landlord€in€leases€to€other€tenants.€Ï"The€presence€of€a€right€to€assign€or€sublet€is€not€necessarilyÏinconsistent€with€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€operation.€€TheÏtwo€covenants€can€be€harmonized€to€permit€subletting€or€assignmentÏto€a€business€of€the€same€character."€€First€American€Bank€&€TrustÏCo.,€729€P.2d€at€941.€€Obviously,€the€plaintiffs'€predecessorsÏintended€for€a€SupeRx,€or€another€fitting€business,€to€occupy€theseÏpremises.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòLagrew,€et€al€v.€Hooks„SupeRx,€Inc.óó,€905€F.Supp.€401,€406„07€(E.D.€Ky.€1995).€Ð P   ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àThe€trial€court€held€that€the€1985€amendment€to€the€lease€contained€anÏimplied€covenant€of€continuous€occupancy,€and€the€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏsupports€this€conclusion.ÌÌà Ø àSince€this€court€affirms€the€finding€that€an€implied€covenant€of€continuousÏoccupancy€exists,€the€next€question€is€whether€or€not€"Bud's€Discount€City"€is€aÏ"discount€department€store"€within€the€contemplation€of€the€parties€at€the€time€ofÏthe€execution€of€the€1985€amendment€to€the€lease.€€The€trial€court€found€as€a€factÏthat€"Bud's"€was€not€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€such€finding.€ÏThe€"discount€department€store"€contemplated€by€the€parties€in€1985€was€theÏdiscount€department€store€that€since€1982€had€more€than€quadrupled€its€grossÏreceipts€from€$2,047,072.56€to€$8,981,538.49.€€It€was€the€"discount€departmentÏstore"€that€had€increased€percentage€rentals€to€the€landlord€from€$17,149.06€inÏ1982€to€$43,130.77€in€1985.€€It€was€the€"discount€department€store"€that€theÏparties,€based€on€experience,€had€every€right€to€believe€would€continue€to€growÐ H9˜4: Ðand€thereby€benefit€both€BVT€and€Wal„Mart.€€True€to€its€history€after€the€1985Ïamendment€authorizing€expansion,€Wal„Mart€increased€its€gross€receipts€toÏ$29,551,354.91€and€increased€percentage€rent€to€$123,513.55.ÌÌà Ø àThe€"discount€department€store"€known€as€"Bud's€Discount€City",€theÏwholly€owned€subsidiary€of€Wal„Mart€occupying€the€premises€subsequent€to€1995Ïhas€gross€revenues€of€approximately€$3,000,000.00€per€annum.ÌÌà Ø à"Bud's"€did€not€exist€in€1985€and€is€best€characterized€by€the€witness€TomÏSeay€who€was€the€author€of€the€"Bud's"€concept.€€He€testified:ÌÓ€ÓÓ<€Ð„XñàÀè“X€Ð„XñàDè“X<Óà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€When€were€they€first€created?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€WITNESS:€€Oh,€gosh,€I€don't€know€the€exact€year.€€ButÏI€would€say€it€had€to€be€„„Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€Early€'90s?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€WITNESS:€€Early€'90s,€yes,€sir.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€Okay.€€For€what€purpose€were€they€created?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€WITNESS:€€Well,€actually,€they€were€my€idea.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€And€I've€got€a€pretty€good€idea€of€why€you€didÏit,€but€go€ahead€and€tell€me€why.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€WITNESS:€€Well,€what€happened€was,€I€approachedÏDavid€Glass,€who€is€our€president,€and€I€told€him€that€I€thought€weÏhad€an€opportunity€in€some€of€the€buildings€that€were€vacant€for€usÏto€put€in€another€operation€so€we€could€make€more€money.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àI€said,€[s]ome€of€these€markets€are€so€good€that€we€could€putÏin€another€operation,€similar€to€the€Wal„Mart,€and€I€said,€I€think€weÏcould€make€a€lot€of€money€doing€that.€€And€so€what€we€did€was,€weÏlooked€at€all€of€our€vacant€stores€and€said,€Okay,€on€a€market„by„¼market€basis,€do€we€think€we€could€make€money?€€And€the€ones€thatÏwe€thought€we€could,€we€opened€up€the€Bud's€Discount€Stores€in.€ÏIt€was€strictly€to€make€money.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€I€understand.€€Okay.€€But€you€didn't€create€aÏcompetitor€for€yourself.€€You€didn't€do€that?€€That€wasn't€done?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€WITNESS:€€No,€sir.€€But€what€we€saw€is,€we€saw€aÏmarket€opportunity.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€Oh,€I€realize€„„€I€understand€that.€€But€if€there'sÏa€market€opportunity€there€for€a€Wal„Mart,€then€it€looks€like€to€meÏit€makes€sense€to€put€a€Wal„Mart€store€there€as€opposed€to€somethingÏentirely€different,€you€know.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€WITNESS:€€But€we€already€„„€we€would€have€a€Wal„¼Mart.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€You€have€a€Wal„Mart€„„Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€WITNESS:€€This€is€in€addition€to€the€Wal„Mart.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€Well,€I€understand€that.€€But€you've€also€gotÏmany€Wal„Mart€stores€around€in€different€cities,€do€you€not?€€You'veÏgot€more€than€one€in€a€lot€of€different€cities,€do€you€not?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€WITNESS:€€Yeah.€€But€not€in€a€town€like€Lebanon,Ð Ð9 57 ÐTennessee.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€Well,€I€realize€that.€€I€understand€that.€€ButÏyou€did€not€create€Bud's€„„€well,€I€guess€I€need€to€ask€you.€€Did€youÏcreate€Bud's€to€be€a€competitor€of€Wal„Mart€in€a€small€town?€€That'sÏreally€what€you're€talking€about.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€WITNESS:€€What€we€did€was,€we€created€Bud's€to€putÏin€these€stores€because,€number€one,€they€were€good€locations;Ïnumber€two,€the€market€would€justify€an€additional€discount€store€inÏthe€market;€number€three,€we€thought€if€we€could€put€Bud's€in€andÏbe€successful,€then€maybe€we€would€eliminate€another€competitorÏfrom€coming€in€and€picking€up€the€void€in€the€market;€and,€numberÏfour,€we€thought€we€would€make€money.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð`° Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àA€1999€Lincoln€Town€Car€is€an€automobile.€€A€1925€Model€T€Ford€is€anÏautomobile.€€They€are€not€the€same.€€The€question€whether€"Bud's€Discount€City"Ïis€òòcalledóó€a€"warehouse"€or€a€"discount€department€store"€does€not€matter.€€Bud'sÐ 8ˆ Ðclearly€is€not€what€was€contemplated€as€a€"discount€department€store"€by€theÏparties€in€1985€and€thus€not€the€type€of€store€contemplated€by€the€1985€impliedÏcovenant€of€continuous€occupancy.€€The€assignment€by€Wal„Mart€to€Bud's€wasÏnot€an€".€.€.€assignment€to€a€business€of€the€same€character".€€òòFirst€American€BankÐ ˜è Ð&€Trust€Co.€v.€Safeway€Stores,€Inc.óó,€729€P.2d€938,€941€(Ariz.€App.€1986).Ð 0€ ÐÌà Ø àWal„Mart€has€breached€the€implied€covenant€of€continuous€occupancy€andÏis€liable€to€the€landlord€for€resulting€damages.€ÌÌÓ€ÓIII.à Ø àMEASURE€OF€DAMAGES€FOR€BREACH€OF€AN€IMPLIED€Ð (&x!& Ðà Ø àCOVENANT€OF€CONTINUOUS€OCCUPANCYÌà Ø àÌÓ€Óà Ø à"The€measure€of€damages€for€breach€of€any€contract€is€that€which€wasÏreasonably€contemplated€by€the€parties.€€The€general€principle€for€assessment€ofÏdamages€for€breach€of€contract€is€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€be€placed,€so€farÏas€can€be€done€by€money,€in€the€same€position€he€would€have€been€in€if€theÏcontract€had€been€performed."€€òòHawkins€v.€Reynoldsóó,€62€Tenn.€App.€686,€697,€467Ð ¸/+1 ÐS.W.2d€791,€795€(1971);€òòsee€also€Chambliss,€Bahner€&€Crawford€v.€Lutheróó,€531Ð P1 ,3 ÐS.W.2d€108€(Tenn.€App.€1975);€òòWilhite€v.€Brownsville€Concrete€Co.óó,€798€S.W.2dÐ è28.5 Ð772€(Tenn.€App.€1990)€and€òòAction€Ads,€Inc.€v.€William€B.€Tanner€Co.óó,€592€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð572€(Tenn.€App.€1979).ÌÌà Ø àThis€is€in€keeping€with€the€"expectation€interest"€or€"benefit€of€the€bargain"Ïrule€generally€applicable€in€sister€jurisdictions.€€òòSeeò ò€ó óóó22€AmJur2d€"Damages",Ð  ` Ðsection€45,€p.€68.ÌÌà Ø àThis€court€has€held:€€".€.€.€that€our€Tennessee€decisions€are€firmly€committedÏto€the€policy€of€granting€the€victim€of€a€breached€lease€all€of€the€damages€whichÏhe€sustained€as€a€proximate€result€of€the€breach,€so€long€as€such€damages€areÏreasonably€shown€and€capable€of€reasonably€accurate€ascertainment."€€òòFerrell€v.Ð £ó ÐElrodóó,€63€Tenn.€App.€129,€153,€469€S.W.2d€678,€689€(1971).Ð ;‹ ÐÌà Ø àWe€now€address€the€issue€of€damages€when€an€anchor€tenant€in€a€shoppingÏcenter€breaches€a€covenant€of€continuous€occupancy€express€or€implied.€€In€theÏlast€decade,€appellate€courts€of€Nevada,€Indiana,€and€North€Carolina,€as€well€asÏthe€10th€Circuit€of€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals,€applying€Oklahoma€law,Ïhave€addressed€the€issue.ÌÌà Ø àThe€lineage€of€the€difference„in„value€measure€begins€with€what€a€cynicÏmight€call€the€"Snake„bit€Hornwood€Trilogy"€from€Nevada.€€òòHornwood€v.€Smith'sÐ “$ã( ÐFood€King€No.€1óó,€was€first€decided€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Nevada€on€April€25,Ð +&{!* Ð1989.€€In€this€opinion,€reported€in€772€P.2d€at€1284,€the€Supreme€Court€of€NevadaÏheld€the€proper€measure€of€damages€for€breaching€the€covenant€of€continuousÏoccupancy€to€be€the€difference€between€the€value€of€the€shopping€center€withÏanchor€tenant€and€the€value€without€the€anchor€tenant.€€The€case€was€re„tried€inÏthe€district€court€and€appealed.€€On€March€6,€1991,€the€Nevada€Supreme€CourtÏheld€that€the€trial€court€had€failed€to€properly€assess€the€Hornwood's€damages€forÏthe€diminished€value€of€the€shopping€center.€€òòHornwood€v.€Smith's€Food€King€No.Ð S1£,8 Ð1óó,€807€P.2d€208€(Nev.1991).€€In€the€meantime,€the€incumbent€trial€judge€lost€hisÐ ë2;.: Ðbid€for€re„election€and€the€case€came€on€for€a€third€trial€before€his€successor.€€OnÏthis€third€trial,€the€successor€judge€did€not€hold€an€evidentiary€hearing€but€simplyÏadopted€the€plaintiff's€proof€as€to€damages€and€entered€judgment€forÏ$1,425,000.00.€€On€appeal,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Nevada€on€August€28,€1992Ð K9›4B Ðreversed€and€remanded€for€a€third€time.€€òòHornwoodóó,€836€P.2d€1241€(Nev.€1992).€Ð ° ÐIn€each€of€the€òòHornwoodóó€decisions,€the€Nevada€Supreme€Court€reaffirmed€itsÐ H˜ Ðmeasure€of€damages€set€forth€in€the€first€decision€in€772€P.2d€1284.ÌÌà Ø àIn€holding€that€the€diminution€in€value€of€the€entire€shopping€center€was€theÏproper€measure€of€damages,€the€Nevada€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àSmith's€is€a€sophisticated€business€entity.€€Smith's€knew€thatÏits€presence€as€the€anchor€tenant€had€a€critical€impact€on€theÏshopping€center's€success.€€Without€an€anchor€tenant,€obtaining€long„¼term€financing€and€attracting€satellite€tenants€is€nearly€impossible€forÏa€shopping€center.€€Perhaps€most€importantly,€the€anchor€tenantÏinsures€the€financial€viability€of€the€center€by€providing€theÏnecessary€volume€of€customer€traffic€to€the€shopping€center.€ÏTherefore,€we€find€that€the€district€court€clearly€erred€in€concluding,Ïas€a€matter€of€law,€that€the€diminution€in€value€of€the€Hornwoods'Ïshopping€center€was€unforeseeable.€€òòConneróó,€103€Nev.€at€356,€741Ð Ð  ÐP.2d€at€801.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€that€portion€of€the€districtÏcourt's€ruling€and€remand€to€the€district€court€for€an€assessment€ofÏthe€Hornwoods'€damages€as€a€consequence€of€the€loss€of€their€anchorÏtenant.€Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòHornwood€v.€Smith's€Food€King€No.€1ò ò,€ó óóó€772€P.2d€1284,€1286€(Nev.€1989).òòò ò€óóó óÐ 0€ ÐÌÌÓ€Óà Ø àIn€òòPleasant€Valley€Promenade€v.€Lechmere€Incò ò.,€óóó ó464€S.E.2d€47€(N.C.App.Ð b!² Ð1995),€the€North€Carolina€Court€of€Appeals,€in€reversing€judgment€non€obstanteÏveredicto€following€an€$8,000,000€verdict€for€the€plaintiff,€determined€thisÏquestion€of€first€impression€with€reliance€on€òòHornwoodò ò.ó óóó€€Said€the€court:Ð -&}!$ ÐÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àIn€the€context€of€a€breach€of€contract€between€the€anchor€storeÏand€the€shopping€center€in€which€it€resides,€we€recognize€there€areÏoften€extensive€damages.€€òòSee€Hornwood€v.€Smith's€Food€King€No.Ð è)8%( Ð1óó,€107€Nev.€80,€807€P.2d€208€(1991);€Tysonòòò ò,€ó óDrafting,€Interpreting,Ð ø*H&) Ðand€Enforcing€Commercial€and€Shopping€Center€Leasesóó,€14Ð  ,Z'* ÐòòòòCAMPBELLóó€l.rev.óó€275€(1992).€€These€damages€result€because€theÐ -j(+ Ðshopping€center€is€a€"cooperative€enterprise,€with€each€store'sÏsuccess€dependent€on€the€continued€operation€of€the€other€stores€.€.Ï.€."€€òòDover€Shopping€Center,€Inc.€v.€Cushman's€Sons,€Inc.óó,€63Ð J0š+. ÐN.J.Super.€384,€164€A.2d€785,€790€(Ct.App.Div.1960).€€TheÏcontribution€of€each€store€determines€the€flow€of€business€of€theÏentire€shopping€center,€and€likewise,€a€store€leaving€affects€theÏcenter€as€a€whole.€€òòSee€W€&€G€Seaford€Associates,€L.P.€v.€EasternÐ Š4Ú/2 ÐShore€Markets,€Inc.óó,€714€F.Supp.€1336,€1348€(D.Del.1989).€€ThoughÐ š5ê03 Ða€shopping€center€is€'cooperative"€in€nature,€the€anchor€store€is€theÏfocal€point€of€the€entire€shopping€center.€€Tyson,€14€òòcampòòBóóellÐ º7 35 Ðl.rev.óó€301„303.€€The€function€of€the€anchor€is€"to€provide€certaintyÐ Ê846 Ðof€income€stream,€an€identity€and€stability€for€the€center€which,€inÐ Ú9*57 Ðturn,€draws€customers,€attracts€other€tenants€and€increases€overallÏsales."€€òòId.óó€at€303.€€Further,€without€an€anchor€store€long„termÐ À Ðfinancing€is€virtually€impossible€to€obtain.€€òòHornwood€v.€Smith'sÐ Ð  ÐFood€King€No.€1óó,€105€Nev.€188,€772€P.2d€1284,€1286€(1989).€Ð à0 ÐTherefore,€the€anchor's€loss€has€been€described€as€"worse€than€aÏflood,€fire€or€tornado,€because€usually€there€is€insurance€to€coverÏ[natural]€disasters."€€Tyson,€14€òòcampvell€l.rev.óó€at€303.Ð `Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àPleasant€Valley€installed€Lechmere€as€the€Center's€anchorÏstore€based€on€Lechmere's€product€mix,€value€offered,€aggressiveÏadvertising€method,€and€regional€drawing€power.€€Lechmere,€inÏbreach€of€the€Agreement,€abandoned€the€Center.€€As€a€result€ofÏLechmere's€abandonment,€Pleasant€Valley€claimed€damages€arisingÏfrom:€€(1)€harm€to€the€overall€probability€of€success€of€the€Center;Ï(2)€harm€to€the€fair€market€value€of€the€Center;€and€(3)€harm€to€the€ÏCenter's€ability€to€attract€and€retain€non„anchor€tenants€and€aÏcorresponding€reduction€in€customer€traffic€and€the€attendantÏdecrease€in€sales€revenue.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àTherefore,€consistent€with€the€guidance€of€our€Supreme€Court,Ïwe€believe€a€damages€remedy€should€be€available€to€Pleasant€ValleyÏwhich€promotes€the€frequently€declared€objective€of€placing€"theÏinjured€part[y]€in€as€good€a€position€as€they€would€have€been€in€ifÏthe€contract€had€not€been€breached€.€.€.€."€€Knapp,€òòÔ‡&¸ &0¼\ÔCOMMERCIALÐ  p ÐDAMAGES:€€A€GUIDE€TO€REMEDIES€IN€BUSINESS€LITIGATIONÔ#†¼\¼ ¸&¸Œ)#Ôóó,€ðð€1.02Ð 0€ Ð(Matthew€Bender€1995).€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€the€damagesÏmeasure€asserted€by€Pleasant€Valley,€diminution€in€market€value,€isÏrecoverable€in€a€breach€of€contract€action.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓPleasant€Valley€Promenade€v.€Lechmere€Inc.óó,€464€S.E.2d€47,€61„62€(N.C.€App.Ð €#Ð Ð1995).€€An€appeal€of€òòLechmereóó€was€granted€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€NorthÐ %h  ÐCarolina€(472€S.E.2d€18),€but€on€December€10,€1996€before€argument€in€theÏsupreme€court€the€case€was€settled€and€the€appeal€withdrawn.€€òòPleasant€ValleyÐ H(˜## ÐPromenade€v.€Lechmere€Inc.,€óó345€N.C.€346,€484€S.W.2d€92€(N.C.€1996).Ð à)0%% ÐÌà Ø àAlmost€simultaneously€with€òòLechmereò òóó,€ó óthe€Court€of€Appeals€of€IndianaÐ -`() Ðdecided€òòScott„Reitz€Ltd.€v.€Rein€Warsaw€Associatesóó,€658€N.E.2d€98€(Ind.€1995).€Ð ®.þ)+ ÐAgain,€relying€on€òòHornwoodóó,€the€Indiana€Court€of€Appeals€established€aÐ F0–+- Ðdiminution€of€value€approach€involving€the€entire€shopping€center.€€This€was€doneÏin€part€by€an€income€capitalization€approach€similar€to€the€plaintiff's€proof€in€theÏcase€at€bar.€€In€adopting€the€diminution€of€market€value€approach€to€damages€theÏcourt€stated:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àScott€argues€the€trial€court's€award€contains€anticipated€lostÏfuture€rental€profit,€from€the€B€tenants,€which€is€too€speculative€anÐ N9ž48 Ðamount€to€properly€base€an€award€of€damages.€€Evidence€of€futureÏprofits€was€relevant,€insofar€as€it€applied€to€the€value€of€the€Lease€onÏthe€date€of€the€breach.€€Rein's€evidence€of€future€profits€was€relevantÏnot€as€to€anticipated€lost€profits€as€such,€but€rather€as€going€to€theÏfair€market€value€of€the€Lease.€€See€òòAnnon€IIóó€597€N.E.2d€at€326„238.Ðð@Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓScott€„Reitz€Ltd.€v.€Rein€Warsaw€Associatesò ò,€ó óóó658€N.E.2d€98,€106€(Ind.€Ct.€App.Ð  ` Ð1995).Ìà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àÐ 0 ¤0 ¤ Ðà Ø àThe€trial€court€in€the€case€at€bar€awarded€compensatory€damages€in€theÏamount€of€€$2,507,674€representing€the€present€value€of€lost€future€percentageÏrents€for€the€duration€of€the€lease.€€This€was€apparently€based€upon€the€alternativeÏmeasure€of€damages€testimony€offered€by€the€witness€Samuel€R.€Boles.ÌÌà Ø àIn€the€examination€of€the€witness€Boles€the€record€shows:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àNow,€let€me€ask€you,€please,€sir,€with€respect€to€damages€hereÐ k» Є„€and€I'll€just€tell€the€Court€initially,€we've€calculated€the€damagesÏin€two€different€manners.€€Let€me€ask€you€first€whether€or€not€you'veÏdone€these€calculations.€€The€first€one,€Mr.€Boles,€is€the€differenceÏin€the€value€to€this€center,€to€the€owners,€BVT,€the€plaintiff€here,Ïwith€and€without€Wal„Mart€in€place.€€Have€you€done€thatÏcalculation?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌÓ  Ó€€*€*€*€ÌÌÓ  Óà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àWhat's€the€number,€Mr.€Boles?Ð $["Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àA.à 0 à4.7€million.Ð%k #Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àAnd€that€is€what€the€center€is€worth€less€as€a€result€of€Wal„Ð +&{!$ ÐMart€not€being€there?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà Ø àA.à 0 àRight.Ð K(›#& Ðà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àTell€the€Court€how€you€calculated€that€number.Ð[)«$'Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àA.à 0 àUsing€actual€scheduled€rents€and€actual€experience€ofÐ k*»%( Ðexpenses€and€capitalizing€the€net€income.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àHave€you€done€this€more€than€once€in€your€life?Ћ,Û'*Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àA.à 0 àMany,€many€times.€€As€an€example,€and€to€answer€Mr.Ð ›-ë(+ ÐComstock,€I€have€within€the€last€24€months€bought€and/or€sold€eightÏdifferent€retail€investments.€€I€have€two€currently€under€contract.€ÏThis€is€something€I€do€frequently€is€value€property,€both€forÏacquisition€and€sales.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àLet€me€ask€you,€please,€sir,€this€is€a€big€number.€€I€want€youÐ ë2;.0 Ðto€concisely€but€adequately€explain€to€the€Judge€exactly€how€youÏcalculated€it.€€You€said€you€took€projected€rents,€actual€rents.€€WalkÏus€through€that.€€Just€take€a€couple€of€minutes€and€walk€us€throughÏthat.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌÓ  Ó*€*€*Ð K9›46 ЇÓ  Óà8 Ø àA.à 0 àYour€Honor,€what€I€did€is€in€the€last€year€of€operating,€whichÐ ° Ðwas€12/31/96€on€the€calendar€year,€when€Bud's€was€obviouslyÏoperating€in€the€premises,€I€took€the€base€and€actual€scheduled€rents,ÏI€took€the€expense€reimbursements,€the€actual€ones,€I€took€the€actualÏvacancy,€and€come€up€with€the€total€receipts,€actual€receipts€forÏ1996,€which€is€$785,264.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ѐà8 Ø àà 0 àI€took€the€actual€expenses,€Your€Honor,€of€204,585,€which€isÐ  ` Ða€net€income€of€580,679.€€We€had€capital€expenses,€Your€Honor,€ofÏtenant€improvements€and€replacement€reserve€which€is€computed€atÏ10€cents€per€square€foot,€totaling€56,420,€leaving€a€net€cash€flow€ofÏ$524,259.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àI€researched€the€market€to€find€out€what€capitalization€rateÏwould€be€used,€Your€Honor,€for€properties€with€a€Bud's€operating€inÏthe€premises.€€And€the€research€in€the€marketplace€told€me€atÏminimum€it€would€be€12€ðð€to€15€percent.€€And€in€this€analysis,€IÏused€14€percent.€€And€I€came€up€with€a€value,€Your€Honor,€ofÏ3,745,000€as€a€Bud's.€Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àI€took€the€last€full€year€of€operating€year,€Your€Honor,€for€theÏWal„Mart€store.€€I€took€the€actual€scheduled€leases€that€were€at€theÏshopping€center.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÌÓ  Óà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àOkay,€Mr.€Boles.€€You've€given€us€an€evaluation€on€theÐ  p Ðmethod€described€by€you€that€showed€the€value€of€the€center€withoutÏWal„Mart€there€in€the€sum€of€$3,745,000;€correct?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà Ø àA.à 0 àCorrect.Ð P   Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àà ñ àMR.€WHITE:€€I€think€Mr.€Agee€wants€to€look€at€myÏchart€that€they€didn't€want€us€to€see.€€But€that's€fine.€€We'll€note€that.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà Ø àòòBY€MR.€WHITEóó:Ð €#Ð Ðà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àNow,€I'm€asking€you,€please,€sir,€about€your€evaluation€of€thisÐ $à Ðcenter€had€Wal„Mart€stayed.€€And€I've€cut€you€off€in€this€dialogue,Ïbut€start€one€more€time.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àA.à 0 àI€used€the€last€full€year,€fiscal€year€that€Wal„Mart€„„€excuseÐ À'#! Ðme,€calendar€year,€'94,€that€Wal„Mart€was€operational.€€I€took€theÏactual€scheduled€leases€of€the€existing€tenants€as€well€as€their€optionÏterms.€€More€in€particularly,€I€was€looking€at€this€particular€year.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àI€took€the€base€rent€and€the€percentage€rent€that€Wal„Mart€paidÏor€would€have€owed€for€that€year,€the€expense€reimbursements€thatÏwould€have€been€paid€for€that€year,€less€the€vacancy€of€4€ðð€percent.€ÏThe€total€receipts€were€$1,072,779.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àThe€expenses€were€increased€to€223,131€as€a€result€of€theÏincrease€in€tax€base€subsequent€to€Wal„Mart€being€operational.€€TheÏnet€income€was€849,648.€€The€capital€expenses€and€the€replacementÏreserves€totaled€26,535,€resulting€in€a€net€cash€flow€of€$823,113.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àNow,€similarly,€as€I€did€the€other€example,€I€questionedÏinvestors.€€And€with€Wal„Mart€operational€and€Wal„mart€as€anÏintegral€part€of€this€investment,€capitalization€rates€ranged€from€9Ïand€a€quarter€to€9€and€three„quarters.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àI€used€the€top€end€of€that€spectrum.€€And€I€come€up€with€aÏvalue€of€$8,440,000,€for€a€difference€in€value€of€4,695,000€orÐ Ð9 52 Ð$4,700,000.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àI'm€sorry?ÐÀØ ü!Ø ü! Ðà Ø àA.à 0 àRounded€to€4,700,000.Ð Ð  Ðà8 Ø àQ.à 0 àBut€the€precise€number€in€difference€in€this€center€without€aÐ à0 ÐWal„Mart€present€is€a€decrease€in€value€of€$4,695,000;€correct?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà Ø àA.à 0 àThat's€correct.Ð  P ÐÌÌÓ€Óà Ø àWhile€Mr.€Bole's€testimony€was€admitted€over€the€repeated€objections€ofÏWal„Mart,€it€is€consistent€with€the€market€value€approach€of€òòHornwood,Ð È  ÐLechmere,€supra,€Scott„Reitz€Ltd.óó,€òòsupraóó,€and€òòJohn€A.€Henry€&€Company,€Ltd.€v.Ð `°  ÐTG&Y€Storesóó,€941€F.2d€1068€(10th€Cir.€1991).€€Ð øH  ÐÌà Ø àSince€no€other€evidence€in€the€record€addresses€diminution€of€market€valueÏof€the€shopping€center€as€the€measure€of€damages,€and€since€this€court€findsÏdiminution€in€market€value€of€the€shopping€center€to€be€the€proper€measure€ofÏdamages€for€breach€of€the€implied€covenant€of€continuous€occupancy,€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€will€be€modified€to€reflect€such€damages€in€the€amountÏof€$4,695,000.ÌÌIV.à Ø àTHIRD€PARTY€RECEIPTS€€Ð P    Ðà Ø àWithin€the€leased€premises,€Wal„Mart€allowed€Medco€Drugs,€Inc.€toÏoperate€a€pharmacy.€€During€the€last€two€years€that€Wal„Mart€and€Medco€occupiedÏthe€leased€premises,€percentage€rent€was€not€paid€by€Wal„Mart€on€gross€receiptsÏattributable€to€Medco€sales.ÌÌà Ø àThe€trial€court€granted€partial€summary€judgment€to€BVT€holding€that€theÏapplicable€lease€agreement€in€this€respect€was€unambiguous.€€This€holding€isÏclearly€correct.ÌÌà Ø àThe€assigning€and€subletting€provision€of€the€agreement€states:ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 àThe€Lessee€covenants€not€to€assign,€mortgage€or€encumberÏthis€agreement,€or€sublet€or€use€or€permit€the€demised€premises,€orÏany€part€thereof,€to€be€used€by€others€without€the€prior€writtenÏconsent€of€the€Lessor,€which€consent€shall€not€be€unreasonablyÏwithheld.€€However,€Lessor€expressly€agrees€that€Lessee€may,Ïwithout€Lessor's€consent,€sublease€or€assign€this€lease€to€an€affiliateÏor€subsidiary.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€ÓÐ H9˜4= Ðà Ø àIf€Medco€is€in€fact€a€third€party,€no€written€consent€of€the€lessor€was€everÏsought€or€received.€€If€Medco€is€an€operating€department€of€Wal„Mart,€then€itsÏgross€receipts€are€Wal„Mart's€gross€receipts€and€Wal„Mart,€within€the€demisedÏpremises,€cannot€divide€itself€into€component€parts€to€the€end€of€reducing€its€grossÏreceipts.ÌÌà Ø àWe€observe€that€Wal„Mart€did€not€segregate€its€gross€receipts€attributableÏto€Medco€sales€until€the€last€two€years€of€its€operations,€which€was€after€theÏlawsuit€at€bar€had€been€filed.ÌÓ€Óà8 Ø àà 0 à'Parties€are€far€less€liable€to€have€been€mistaken€as€to€theÏmeaning€of€their€contract€during€the€period€while€harmonious€andÏpractical€construction€reflects€that€intention,€than€they€are€whenÏsubsequent€differences€'have€impelled€them€to€resort€to€law,€and€oneÏof€them€then€seeks€a€construction€at€variance€with€the€practicalÏconstruction€that€they€have€placed€upon€it€of€what€was€intended€byÏits€provisions.'Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓPigg€v.€Houston€&€Liggettóó,€8€Tenn.€App.€613,€633„34€(1928).€€(citing€6€R.C.L.€p.Ð ˆØ Ð853€sec.€241.)€ñõñ€ñõñ€òòSee€also€McDowell€v.€Ramboóó,€21€Tenn.€App.€448€111€S.W.2dÐ  p Ð892,€899€(1937).ÌÌà Ø àHaving€affirmed€the€trial€court's€determination€that€Wal„Mart€is€liable€forÏpercentage€rent€based€on€Medco's€gross€receipts,€this€court€moves€to€determine€theÏamount€underpaid,€which€should€be€a€simple€matter€of€mathematics.€€Indeed,€theÏaffidavit€of€Kandy€Beaver,€supervisor€of€the€accounting€department€of€Wal„Mart,Ïgiven€February€25,€1997,€would€appear€conclusive€on€this€point.€€She€states,Ï"Attached€hereto€.€.€.€is€a€computation€reflecting€(a)€historically,€what€Wal„MartÏactually€paid€(b)€what€additional€should€have€been€paid€òòifóó€third€party€receipts€areÐ x+È&. Ðòòto€beóó€included€($108,759.23);€and€(c)€what€should€have€been€paid€(and€what€is€dueÐ -`(0 ÐWal„Mart,€$186,501.77)€if€third€party€receipts€are€not€to€be€included."ÌÌà Ø àThe€court€has€determined€that€third€„party€receipts€are€to€be€included€andÏthe€figure€provided€by€Wal„Mart€and€used€by€the€trial€court€in€its€judgment€forÏthird€party€receipts€rentals€is€$108,759.23.ÌÌà Ø àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€this€respect€is€affirmed.ÌÐ Ð9 5@ ÐV.à Ø àTHE€RIGHT€TO€A€JURY€TRIAL€Ð ° Ðà Ø àNeither€party€asked€for€trial€by€jury€in€their€original€pleading.€€By€amendedÏcomplaint,€BVT€sought€the€recovery€of€percentage€rental€on€"third€party"€receiptsÏrealized€by€Medco.ÌÌà Ø àIn€its€answer€to€this€amended€complaint€on€July€5,€1996,€Wal„Mart€notedÏon€the€face€of€such€answer€"Jury€Trial€Requested".€€Such€a€demand€is€adequateÏunder€Rule€38.02€if,€in€fact,€the€amended€complaint€and€the€answer€thereto€presentÏadditional€questions€of€fact.€€The€trial€court€held€that€no€such€additional€facts€wereÏpresented€by€the€amended€complaint€and€answer€thereto€but€only€issues€of€lawÏwere€tendered.ÌÌà Ø àThis€issue€involves€contract€interpretation€for€the€court.€€If€BVT€was€correctÏin€its€interpretation€(acquiesced€in€by€Wal„Mart€until€after€suit€was€filed)€Wal„¼Mart€owed€BVT€for€Medco€sales€subsequent€to€the€reversal€of€position€by€Wal„¼Mart.€€If€Wal„Mart's€interpretation€of€the€contract€was€correct,€and€such€"thirdÏparty"€receipts€were€not€includable€in€Wal„Mart's€gross€receipts,€then€BVT€owedÏWal„Mart€reimbursement€for€previously€paid€percentage€rent€based€upon€MedcoÏgross€receipts.€€There€being€no€dispute€as€to€the€applicable€contract€provisions,Ïand€no€ambiguity€therein,€the€interpretation€thereof€is€a€question€of€law€for€theÏcourt.€€òòPetty€v.€Sloanóó,€197€Tenn.€630,€277€S.W.2d€355€(1955).Ð $à( ÐÌà Ø àOnce€the€court€determines€the€question€of€law€as€to€contract€interpretationÏthe€amount€owed€should€be€and€in€fact€is,€under€this€record,€a€mathematicalÏcertainty.€€Such€is€established€by€Wal„Mart's€own€proof€in€the€form€of€the€KandyÏBeaver€affidavit€of€February€25,€1997.€€If€BVT's€interpretation€is€correct,€theÏamount€owed€by€Wal„Mart€is€$108,759.23.€€If,€on€the€other€hand,€Wal„Mart€isÏcorrect€in€its€interpretation€of€the€contract,€BVT€owes€Wal„Mart€$186,501.77.€ÏThere€simply€is€no€factual€dispute.ÌÌà Ø àThis€mathematical€certainty€is€explicitly€recognized€in€Wal„Mart's€briefÏwherein€it€is€stated€at€footnote€11€on€page€39€of€the€brief:€€"This€should€includeÏa€judgment€on€Wal„Mart's€counter„claim€for€its€position€that€it€inadvertentlyÏoverpaid€BVT€for€a€number€of€years;€òòit€is€undisputedóó€that€amount€of€suchÐ H9˜4B Ðoverpayment€is€$186,501.77€.€.€.€."€€(emphasis€added).€€It€is€equally€undisputedÏthat€the€amount€owed€to€BVT,€if€the€contract€interpretation€question€of€law€isÏdecided€in€its€favor,€is€$108,759.23.€€It€is€exactly€this€latter€amount€plus€calculableÏinterest€thereon€that€was€awarded€by€the€trial€court.€€The€third€party€complaint,€theÏanswer€thereto,€and€the€counter„complaint€raised€only€issues€of€law€and€not€issuesÏof€fact.ÌÌà Ø à"There€is€no€right€to€jury€trial€where€there€is€no€issue€of€fact€but€only€aÏquestion€of€law€in€a€case.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€206€Tenn.€95,€332€S.W.2d€176„77Ð pÀ  Ð(1960)€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà Ø à"In€order€to€create€a€jury€question€there€must€be€a€conflict€in€substantialÏevidence.€€Accordingly,€the€right€to€trial€by€jury€does€not€apply€when€there€is€noÏgenuine€issue€of€fact€to€be€tried,€nor€does€it€apply€to€issues€that€are€matters€ofÏlaw."€€47€AmJur.2d€Jury,€ðð€16,€p.€724.ÌÌà Ø àThe€chancellor€was€correct€in€denying€Wal„Mart's€request€for€trial€by€jury.ÌÌVI.à Ø àSANCTIONSÐ `!°$ Ðà Ø àBy€order€entered€on€September€9,€1997,€the€trial€court€imposed€sanctionsÏagainst€Wal„Mart€in€the€amount€of€$6,240,€representing€auditors€fees€for€workÏdone€in€Bentonville,€Arkansas,€on€May€27,€28,€and€29,€1997.ÌÌà Ø àThis€court€can€find€no€justification€for€the€imposition€of€such€sanctionsÏunder€the€record€in€this€case.€€The€audit€was€for€the€purpose€of€calculating€theÏamount€of€€"third€party"€sales€of€Medco.€€This€court€has€affirmed€the€mathematicalÏcertainty€of€this€amount€in€our€discussion€of€the€jury€trial€right.€€Unless€there€wereÏquestions€of€fact€still€to€be€resolved€following€the€Kandy€Beaver€affidavit,€thereÏwas€no€reason€for€the€May,€1997€audit€in€the€first€place.€€If€such€questions€of€factÏexisted€as€would€justify€further€audit,€it€would€necessarily€follow€that€Wal„Mart'sÏanswer€to€the€third€party€complaint€tendered€issues€of€fact€and€Wal„Mart's€juryÏdemand€was€well€taken.€€The€record€at€trial,€however,€does€not€bear€out€such€factÏissues€that€would€justify€the€audit,€and€comments€by€the€court€at€the€hearing€ofÏJuly€15,€1997,€relative€to€these€sanctions€is€revealing.Ð H9˜4B Їà Ø àThe€patience€of€the€trial€judge€with€counsel€and€with€Wal„Mart€reached€itsÏbreaking€point€at€this€hearing€which€resulted€in€an€extended€lecture€to€counsel€forÏWal„Mart€relative€to€its€alleged€failures€to€produce€proper€records€at€the€May,Ï1997€audit.€€After€the€trial€court€had,€at€length,€vented€its€frustration€upon€counselÏfor€Wal„Mart€about€the€proposed€audit€of€these€"third€party"€receipts€of€Medco,Ïthe€following€exchange€occurred:ÌÓ€ÓÓ<€Ð„Xñà è“X€Ð„XñàÀè“X<Óà8 Ø àà 0 àMR.€WHITE:€€When€we€started€the€trial,€Your€Honor€hadÏalready€granted€our€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment€and€hadÏdenied€the€motion€of€Wal„Mart€to€reconsider.€€We€put€Mr.€Boles€onÏthe€stand.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àMr.€Boles€testified€that€he€took€the€„„€he€did€a€calculation€ofÏthe€damages.€€Your€Honor€listened€to€it.€€He€started€with€theÏ$108,000,€which€was€admitted€by€Wal„Mart€was€the€amount€in€theirÏcalculation€that€was€owed.€€He€put€interest€on€that.€€It€was€tenderedÏas€an€exhibit.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àAnd€the€number€that€he€gave,€may€it€please€the€Court,€and€I'mÏreading€specifically€from€the€transcript,€the€number€that€heÏcalculated€was€$144,689.75.€€And€he€testified,€quote,€"that€is€throughÏJanuary€31st€of€1997.€€We€have€a€per€diem€figure€of€$39.64€per€day."Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àMay€it€please€the€Court,€I€took€the€months€of€February,ÏMarch,€April,€May,€and€June,€which€total€exactly€150€days.€€So€thatÏwould€be€through€the€end€of€the€month€of€June.€€That's€150€daysÏtimes€the€per€diem€figure€of€$39.64.€€That€is€an€additional€$5,946.€ÏAnd€when€that€is€added€to€the€testimony€that€Your€Honor€heard€andÏapproved€when€this€man€testified,€that€gives€the€number€that's€set€outÏin€that€order€of€$150,635.75.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€Well,€Mr.€White,€is€this€what€we're€talkingÏabout€now?€€What€is€this€for?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àMR.€WHITE:€€This€is€for€the€partial€summary€judgment.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€I€realize€that.€€Is€that€for€the€sales€of€theÏdrugstore?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà Ø àà 0 àMR.€WHITE:€€Yes,€Your€Honor.Ìà8 Ø àà 0 àTHE€COURT:€€Well,€what€are€we€doing?€€Why€have€I€just€gotÏthrough€talking€to€Mr.€Comstock€about€all€these€matters€if€you'veÏdone€figured€it€out?Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! Ðà8 Ø àà 0 àMR.€COMSTOCK:€€€That's€exactly€right,€Your€Honor.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà Ø àBVT€asserts€correctly€that€the€$108,759.23€figure€set€forth€in€the€affidavitÏof€Kandy€Beaver€of€February€25,€1997€is€conclusive€and€indeed€undisputed€as€toÏthe€amount€of€Medco€sales€to€be€included€in€gross€receipts€if€the€BVTÏinterpretation€of€the€contract€is€correct.€€The€BVT€interpretation€of€the€contract,Ïaccepted€by€the€trial€court€and€accepted€by€this€court,€results€in€the€mathematicalÏcertainty€evidenced€by€the€Kandy€Beaver€affidavit.€€Thus,€the€answer€of€Wal„MartÏto€the€BVT€amended€complaint€tendered€no€issue€of€fact€for€trial€by€jury.€€BVTÐ H9˜48 Ðcannot€have€it€both€ways.€€Either€the€Kandy€Beaver€affidavit€is€conclusive€of€theÏfact€issue€about€the€extent€of€Medco€gross€receipts€for€all€purposes€or€it€is€simplyÏevidence€of€such€gross€receipts€to€be€considered€along€with€other€evidence€inÏwhich€case€the€sanctions€imposed€would€be€in€the€sound€discretion€of€the€court.€ÏThe€other€edge€of€this€sword€is€that€in€such€case,€issues€of€fact€were€tendered€byÏthe€answer€to€the€amended€complaint€and€Wal„Mart's€demand€for€trial€by€jury€onÏall€issues€would€be€well€taken.€€This€court€concludes€that€there€is€no€genuineÏdispute€of€the€figures€in€the€Kandy€Beaver€affidavit€and€that€the€imposition€ofÏsanctions€was€improper€and€should€be€reversed.ÌÌVII.à Ø àATTORNEY€FEESÐ  ð Ðà Ø àThe€trial€court€awarded€attorney€fees€under€the€lease€contract€in€favor€ofÏBVT€in€the€amount€of€$170,042.61€through€June€30,€1997.ÌÌà Ø àThe€awarding€of€these€attorney€fees€is€provided€for€in€the€contract,€and€theÏamount€thereof€is€generally€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€The€factorsÏidentified€for€guidance€of€the€trial€judge€are€set€forth€in€òòConners€v.€Connersóó,€594Ð 0€  ÐS.W.2d€672€(Tenn.€1980).€€The€award€of€attorney€fees€will€be€modified€toÏdisallow€any€attorney€fees€for€work€done€on€the€"third€party"€receipts€issue,Ïsubsequent€to€the€filing€before€the€trial€court€of€the€Kandy€Beaver€affidavit€ofÏFebruary€25,€1997.€€In€all€other€respects€the€award€of€attorney€fees€is€affirmed.ÌÌ€VIII.à Ø àCONCLUSIONÐ À'#, Ðà Ø àIn€this€case,€the€court€adopts€a€measure€of€damages€conforming€to€theÏdiminution€of€value€of€the€entire€shopping€center€rule,€having€its€recent€genesisÏin€òòHornwoodóó.€€This€diminution€of€value€rule€was€further€developed€in€the€1995Ð ˆ,Ø'2 Ðcases€of€òòPleasant€Valley€Promenade€v.€Lechmere,€Inc.óó,€464€S.E.2d€47,€61„62Ð  .p)4 Ð(N.C.€App.€1995)€and€òòScott„Reitz€Ltd.€v.€Rein€Warsaw€Associatesóó,€658€N.E.2d€98Ð ¸/+6 Ð(Ind.€1995).ÌÌà Ø àIt€must€again€be€noted€that€the€Supreme€Court€of€North€Carolina€granted€anÏappeal€from€òòLechmereóó€but€before€argument€could€be€held€before€that€court€of€lastÐ 6h1> Ðresort,€the€parties€settled€the€case€and€the€appeal€was€withdrawn.€€The€diminutionÏof€value€of€the€entire€shopping€center€approach€appears€to€this€court€to€beÐ H9˜4B Ðconsistent€with€òòFerrell€v.€Elrodóó,€63€Tenn.€App.€129,€154„55,€469€S.W.2d€678,€689Ð ° Ð(1971).ÌÌà Ø àUnder€the€facts€presented€herein,€this€court€finds,€applying€the€factorsÏrecognized€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€in€òòKroger€v.€Chemical€SecuritiesÐ  ` ÐCo.óó,€526€S.W.2d€468€(Tenn.€1975),€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€occupancy.€Ð ¨ ø  ÐPerhaps€most€expressive€of€the€developing€law€relative€to€such€implied€covenantsÏis€the€rule€articulated€by€the€court€inò òòò€ó óPequot€Spring€Water€Co.€v.€Brunnell,€óó46Ð Ø(  ÐConn.€App.€187,€698€A.2d€920€(1997).€€It€is€again€well€to€note€that€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€Connecticut€granted€an€application€to€appeal€in€the€òòBrunnellò ò€ó óóócase€but€thatÐ  [ Ðbefore€the€case€could€be€argued€in€the€Supreme€Court€of€Connecticut€it€was€settledÏand€the€appeal€withdrawn€in€March,€1998.ÌÌà Ø àThis€court€having€found€an€implied€covenant€of€continuous€occupancyÏunder€the€facts€of€this€case,€and€having€adopted€the€diminution€of€market€value€ofÏthe€entire€shopping€center€as€the€proper€of€damages,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏas€to€damages€is€modified€to€reflect€total€damages€for€such€diminution€in€value€inÏthe€amount€of€$4,695,000.ÌÌà Ø àThe€award€of€damages€by€the€trial€court€for€"third€party"€receipt€rentals€asÏto€Medco€sales€is€affirmed.ÌÌà Ø àThe€award€of€sanctions€by€the€trial€court€against€Wal„Mart€is€reversed.ÌÌà Ø àThe€award€of€attorney€fees€to€BVT€is€modified€to€disallow€attorney€fees€toÏthe€extent€such€fees€reflect€work€on€the€"third€party"€receipts€issue€past€the€timeÏwhen€the€Kandy€Beaver€affidavit€of€February€25,€1997€was€filed€with€the€court.ÌÌà Ø àAs€modified€herein,€the€decree€of€the€chancellor€is€affirmed€and€the€case€isÏremanded€for€further€proceedings€in€conformity€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà Ø àCosts€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€Wal„Mart.ÌÌÐ N9ž4B ЇÌÓ€ÓÓ?€Ð„Xñà D@’X€Ð„Xñà è“X?Óà Ø àà 0 àà ñ àà à àà  àà D à________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ñ àà à àà  àà D àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDAVID€WELLES,€SPECIAL€JUDGE€€€ÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àÌÌà Ø àÌÌ€à Ø àà 0 àà ñ à