ÿWPCÊ …#†VU:Ü % 0¸bÔ 4Ü ð 0üÿ 0Dû D3? 0Jr 0T¼ 0^ 0hn 0rÖ 0|H 0†Ä 0J 1uÚU,O 0d{U,ßU* B)5DC^ AM¡µîv~£vÓ! Bô 0@ AOQÆ  0Ôf 0D: D/~ B­˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0ZÓP _5^?G·^W·ôW , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ- ù-U_A 3|x·(¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó****'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òFebruaryÏ14,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(¬3ïâ$¢¢Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` pÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ p ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€/ÛXXdæXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|` à. `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌEASTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌó ó„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌEMMA€JEAN€ELDREDGE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àBRADLEY€CHANCERYÌà àPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€Ï03A01„9501„CH„00352Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBILLY€W.€MONAGHAN€and€wife,à àà à)ÌKATHY€MONAGHAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAFFIRMEDà àÌà àDefendants/Appelleesà àà à)ÌÌò òòòÌóóó óÌÌBarrett€T.€Painter,€Cleveland,€For€the€Appellant€ÌÌJames€F.€Logan,€Jr.,€Cleveland,€For€the€Appellee€ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  Óó óóóINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÌòòò òÌÌóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓIó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€action€for€damages€and€for€rescission€of€aÏdeed€executed€and€delivered€on€March€7,€1990€wasÍdismissed€for€failure€by€the€plaintiff€to€carry€the€burden€of€proof.€€She€appeals,Ïinsisting€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment€of€dismissal.€€OurÏstandard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€accompanied€by€the€presumption€thatÏthe€judgment€is€correct€unless€the€evidence€otherwise€preponderates.€€òòTenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.óó€13(d).€€We€affirm€for€the€reasons€following.ÌÓ  Óò òIIó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€Anatole€Subdivision,€a€planned€upscale€community€of€pricey€houses,Ïwas€developed€by€the€plaintiff€at€substantial€cost,€which€was€funded€by€aÏcommercial€lender€who€became€increasingly€impatient€with€the€slow€pace€at€whichÏthe€lots€were€selling€and€threatened€foreclosure€of€its€deed€of€trust.Ìà àReacting€to€the€threat,€the€plaintiff,€through€her€son€and€attorney„in„fact,Ïresolved€to€stimulate€public€interest€in€her€subdivision.€€She€devised€a€marketingÏscheme€whereby€established€builders€might€purchase€a€lot€at€a€discount€providedÏthey€constructed€a€house€thereon.€€There€were€no€takers€among€the€ranks€ofÏestablished€contractors,€apparently€owing€to€their€perceived€notion€that€the€marketÏwould€not€support€a€surfeit€of€expensive€houses.Ìà àWhereupon€the€defendants„„hereafter€Monaghan„„were€approached.€€TheyÏwere€experienced€in€the€building€trade,€but€not€in€commercial€contracting,€owingÏessentially€to€their€limited€finances.€€According€to€the€plaintiff,€Monaghan€acceptedÏa€proposal€whereby€he€agreed€to€purchase€four€lots€at€different€times€and€constructÏa€residence€on€each€of€them.€€For€the€first€lot€Monaghan€would€pay€the€full€askingÍprice€and€immediately€commence€construction€of€a€house;€when€this€house€wasÏsold€or€occupied,€Monaghan€would€select€a€second€lot,€construct€a€house€thereonÏand,€upon€its€sale,€would€select€a€third€lot,€than€a€fourth.€€If€Monaghan€paid€the€fullÏasking€price€for€the€first,€third€and€fourth€lots,€the€second€lot€would€be€conveyed€freeÏof€consideration.€€Stated€differently,€buy€three€lots,€then€get€one€free.Ìà àAccording€to€Monaghan,€he€rejected€this€proposal€because€he€could€notÏarrange€the€requisite€financing,€owing€to€the€upscale€nature€of€the€proposedÏconstruction.€€Here€is€what€he€said:ÌÓÓÌà0 à€.€.€.€I€told€him€there€was€just€no€way€that€we€could€do€it€with€the€subdivisionÏregulations€as€they€were€and€the€size€houses€and€stuff€like€that.€€I€could€not,Ïin€anyway,€finance€three€lots€or€anything€like€that.Ìà0 àà àSo,€at€that€point€in€time,€Johnny€made€me€an€offer.€€If€I€would€startÏimmediately,€that€[sic]€he€would€let€me€purchase€two€lots€for€the€price€of€one.€ÏAnd€he€would€deed€me€the€second€lot€as€soon€as€I€showed€that€I€was€gettingÏstarted€and€that€I€would€have€a€house€under€construction.€€So€at€that€pointÏthat's€what€we€agreed€upon.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€first€lot€was€conveyed€to€Monaghan€on€November€15,€1989,€and€heÏcompleted€construction€of€a€residence€in€September€1990.€€This€house€wasÏoccupied€by€Monaghan€and€sold€the€following€year.Ìà àBefore€the€first€house€was€completed,€the€second€lot€was€conveyed€toÏMonaghan€in€May€1990.€€Friction€developed€between€the€parties€over€mattersÏextraneous€and€Monaghan€never€began€construction€of€a€residence€on€the€secondÏlot.€€He€was,€in€fact,€ordered€out€of€"my€subdivision,"€apparently€in€a€display€ofÍanger€by€the€plaintiff's€agent.Ìà àIn€the€course€of€time,€the€subdivision€prospered€and€all€of€the€lots€were€sold,Ïincluding€the€third€and€fourth€lots€allegedly€contracted€to€Monaghan.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€sought€rescission€of€the€conveyance€to€Monaghan€for€theÏsecond€lot,€alleging€a€partial€failure€of€consideration€since€Monaghan€had€notÏconstructed€a€residence€on€it€in€violation€of€his€agreement.€€Monaghan€denied€anyÏbreach,€insisting€that€the€oral€agreement€provided€simply€that€he€would€receive€twoÏlots€for€the€price€of€one€with€the€concomitant€allegation€that€he€immediatelyÏconstruct€a€residence€on€the€first€lot,€which€he€did.ÌÓ  Óò òIIIó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€Chancellor€found€that€the€agreement€involved€the€acquisition€of€two€lotsÏby€the€defendants,€one€at€full€asking€price€with€the€second€lot€free€of€consideration.€ÏHe€further€found€that€the€plaintiff€had€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proving€herÏentitlement€to€rescission€of€the€deed€for€the€second€lot€or€for€damages€andÏdismissed€the€complaint.€€The€issue€is€whether€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€findings€of€the€Chancellor.ÌÓ  Óò òIVó óÌÓ  Óà àAt€the€outset,€we€notice€an€anomaly€in€the€plaintiff's€theory€of€the€case.€€SheÏargues€that€the€defendants€failed€to€fulfill€the€remainder€of€the€contract€which€òòinterÏaliaóó€required€them€.€.€.€"to€purchase€and€build€a€house€on€the€third€and€fourth€lots,"Ïnotwithstanding€that€she€sold€these€lots€to€a€third€party€or€parties,€thereby€makingÍher€theory€of€the€contract€partially€impossible€of€performance.€€We€also€notice€thatÏthe€plaintiff€acknowledged€that€proof€of€damages€would€be€essentially€speculative.€ÏConsequently,€the€case€turns€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€evidence€supports€anÏaction€for€rescission€or,€alternatively,€for€damages€commensurate€with€the€value€ofÏthe€lot.€Ìà àMilitating€against€the€plaintiff's€case€are€these€undisputed€facts:€€(1)€€TheÏsecond€lot€was€conveyed€in€March€1990.€€The€complaint€seeking€rescission€wasÏnot€filed€until€September€18,€1993€with€no€intervening€demand€being€made€on€theÏdefendants€to€construct€a€residence€on€it.€€No€reason€is€shown€for€the€delay€of€threeÏand€one„half€years€in€seeking€the€equitable€remedy.€€(2)€The€plaintiff€made€noÏdemand€for€payment€of€additional€money€or€that€the€defendants€purchase€the€thirdÏand€fourth€lots.€€(3)€The€plaintiff€sold€the€third€and€fourth€lots€to€third€parties.Ìà àThe€equitable€remedy€of€rescission€"should€be€exercised€sparingly€and€onlyÏwhen€the€situation€demands€such,"€€òòJames€Cable€Partners€v.€Jamestown,€óó818ÏS.W.2d€338,€343€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)€and€is€available€only€"under€the€mostÏdemanding€circumstances."€€òòRobinson€v.€Brooks,óó€577€S.W.2d€207,€208€(Tenn.€App.Ï1978).€€Even€a€proved€partial€failure€of€consideration€is€not€a€ground€for€rescissionÏunless€the€failure€defeats€the€purpose€of€the€contract.€€òòJames€Cable€Partners,€óó818ÏS.W.2d€at€345òò.óó€€Applying€these€principles,€it€is€clear€to€us€that€the€evidence€neitherÏjustifies€a€rescission€of€the€deed€to€the€second€lot,€nor€entitles€the€plaintiff€to€recoverÏits€value.€€But€an€overriding€consideration€is€to€be€found€in€the€fact€that€theÍChancellor€accepted€the€defendants'€version€of€the€oral€contract,€which€was,€simplyÏstated,€that€if€construction€began€immediately,€"he€would€let€me€purchase€two€lotsÏfor€the€price€of€one."€€To€a€dispositive€extent,€the€case€turned€on€the€credibility€of€theÏparties.€€The€Chancellor€accredited€the€defendants'€version€of€the€oral€agreement,Ïwhich€the€circumstances€tend€to€support,€and€there€the€matter€ends,€since€he€is€theÏbest€judge€of€this€critical€element.€€òòDuncan€v.€Duncanóó,€686€S.W.2d€568,€571€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1984).ÌÌà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€cost€of€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDon€T.€McMurray,€€JudgeÌ