ÿWPC ^Kà“$OöP£²¸SÿO]ã£ÜtÒç³[¢‰¼Ò¨[¡žµ°Ò‡Ã@;k!!%„ÛG{€7(š|SäþW9Ž§ôJÈ;N8× _x0)B"}ôŒu¸=„ë?$P¯™Bçò bký5Ñw£ÎžŒ8[Ž‡üû´M ¥ì•ôa{ò´²áÕPíˆX©ÝÖ¬·½¿+“ãäHÞ|Á 7.)¾oͶ÷­žÍZ¸ØœÕ½’ÉßÖÐéú3 ËÞê Ã9;ËÃÑ7é<¶Ur8@Á·ñýïÀÑêê\±8ü®^.]¥ ¶F™UÊtý²ùÛrÂEßÇcñj$óá¢#zï»ý(e++g¼çå+ãFÄçò»¬>à-÷µ”„Hø3©‹Èšwhr\Ö{[ƒiøZÙ¼‡B|ø¢¤%—Ä©q %#ÌÎÅì±GŒê&zÝ؅㌓•n›]š¨?kàâp¤\½3eëÿØý2Ú¢ÓìB÷®Uöű҆e C¡´„¸âÍ›À/Z@u·Ÿï —f˜“¨(þ×ÿ»¾è§èä =b"xgžDÔÐÂ^@» ,âeËûS®9¾º ©®z(Gé¡Øö«éLØ‘š«cÆŒ6öûWXïõ8gËH«/xå¶/UB’ %ÔÚn­ê 04—4Ë0ßw@U>OUFUHÓ 0x! 0D™U>Ý UB! c U:d d d d d d d d d d d d d AQž Æï 0Dµ 0Dù 0D= = D/ B° D3Í Í Í Í Í B<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|x «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ós~Á&Ó  ÓShelbyMcMURRAY û Pü Dý Uþ Dÿ P  + U Ó€ <èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular<à09Z ‹.Courier New Regular<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular üÝ ƒ Ýé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôí›ôXXÔAgmark€also€argues€that€Ideal€breached€the€agreement€by€failing€toÐ `  Ðprovide€the€specified€equipment€and€by€over€billing€it.(((3Ýé$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<è\( 9Z &Courier Regular üÝ ƒ Ýé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÝ°ôXXÔAgmark€also€argues€that€Ideal€breached€the€agreement€by€failing€toÐ `  Ðprovide€the€specified€equipment€and€by€over€billing€it.<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi ÷Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XÄ~XXXÔÔ€›]XXÄ~ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÄ~X›]ÔÐ  ÐÌJune€9,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd....'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñ ñ›ñ ñÑ` °ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€òsXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÔ‡ XòsXXXÔñ ññ ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@EÈf ` 8ttxP` ð  rßñ ññ ññ ññ ññ ñ›ñ ñIDEAL€PRODUCTS,€INC.,€à@°°*ìàà@@°°*ìà)ˆà0  àC/A€No.€01A01„9807„CV„00348Ð` (#(# Ðà@°°*ìà)ˆà  àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÐ ( È Ðà  àPlaintiff„AppelleeÔ#†XòsXX Xòsä#ÔÔ‡ XòsXXXòsÔà@°°*ìà)ˆà0  àChancery€Court,€Part€OneÐð (#(# Ðà@°°*ìà)ˆà  àNo.€96„1558„II(I)Ô#†XòsXX Xòs¥#ÔÔ‡ XòsXXXòsÔÐ ¸ X Ðñ ññ ñà  àv.€€€à ¸ àà@°°*ìà)ˆà  àÐ €  Ðñ ñœßt€ )>.*jx}£` `€€@EEë ` 8ttxP}H ð £ tß›ñ ñ€€€€€€€à@°°*ìà)ˆà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@°°*ìà€ˆÐ H è ÐAGMARK€FOODS,€INC.€€€à@°°*ìà)ˆà  àÐ ° Ѐ€€€€€€€€à ` à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@°°*ìà)ˆà  àÐ Øx Ðà  àDefendant„AppellantÔ#†XòsXX Xòso#ÔÔ‡ XòsXXXòsÔà@°°*ìà)ˆÐ  @ Ðà@°°*ìà€ˆÌà  àà@ìì*ìàˆà  àÐ 0Ð  ÐÌÌà@| | ìàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€AT€NASHVILLEó óˆÐ ˆ(  ÐÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT,€PART€ONE,€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTY€ATÏNASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌLarry€D.€AshworthÌ227€Second€Avenue,€Northà@ìì*ìàˆà  àÐ Hè ÐNashville,€TN€37201ÌÌPeter€D.€HeilÌP.€O.€Box€40651ÌNashville,€TN€37204ÌÌà  àAttorneys€for€Plaintiff„Appellee€ÌÌWilliam€R.€O'Bryan,€Jr.ÌW.€Neal€McBrayerÌKenneth€M.€BryantÌTRABUE,€STURDIVANT€&€DEWITTÌ2500€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€TN€37219„1738ÌÌà  àAttorneys€for€Defendant„AppellantÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€VACATED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€ò òHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€Judgeó óÐ /¨%0 ÐÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌFRANKS,€J.ÌÌÌÌà@àà$ìàòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóˆÐ 86Ø,9 ÐÌÌÌÌâ âœÔ#†XòsXX XòsÎ#ÔÔ‡ X¶ŽXXXòsÔñû ñà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àñû ñÐ  :À0>ò ÐÓÓÓðÓà  àà ` àÔ#†XòsXX X¶Ž? #ÔÔ‡XòsXXXòsÔThis€suit€involves€a€commercial€lease€agreement€enteredÏâ âinto€by€Agmark€Foods,€Inc.,€Defendant„Appellant,€with€IdealÏProducts,€Inc.,€Plaintiff„Appellee,€for€container€chassis€used€inÏtransporting€commodities€and€bulk€products.€€Agmark€contends€thatÏthe€Chancellor€improperly€granted€a€summary€judgment€in€favor€ofÏIdeal.ÌÌÌà  àà ` àAgmark€transports€commodities€and€bulk€products,€andÏIdeal€leases€container€chassis€used€in€transporting€commoditiesÏand€products.€€On€January€3,€1990,€the€two€parties€entered€into€aÏfive„year€"Master€Lease€Agreement,"€with€Ideal€agreeing€toÏprovide€Agmark€with€chassis€to€transport€its€products.€€ÌÌÌà  àà ` àA€provision€in€the€lease€agreement€gave€Agmark€theÏoption€to€extend€its€contract€beyond€the€five„year€agreement€"atÏa€rate€of€1.5%€of€the€then€current€fair€market€value€per€month,Ïper€chassis."€€In€September€1994,€Pratt€Enterprises,€Inc.,€theÏmanufacturer€of€the€chassis,€appraised€the€value€of€each€chassisÏto€be€approximately€$13,250.€€Ideal€provided€Agmark€with€Pratt'sÏappraisal€of€the€chassis.€€Agmark€thought€that€the€appraisal€wasÏexcessively€high€and€therefore,€decided€not€to€extend€its€leaseÏagreement€with€Ideal.€€Agmark€then€returned€the€chassis€to€Ideal.€ÏMore€than€a€year€after€Agmark€had€returned€the€chassis€to€Ideal,ÏIdeal€notified€Agmark€that€it€needed€to€pay€$44,598.18€in€repairsÏto€the€chassis.€€When€Agmark€refused€to€pay€for€the€repairs,Ð  :À04 ÐIdeal€initiated€legal€action.€€After€a€hearing€on€March€13,€1998,Ïthe€Trial€Court€granted€a€summary€judgment€to€Ideal.€€Agmark€nowÏappeals€that€decision.€€ÌÌÌà  àà ` àAgmark€presents€for€our€review€four€issues,€which€weÏrestate,€that€should€have€precluded€the€Trial€Court's€grant€ofÏsummary€judgment:ÌÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` x` xà1.€Whether€Ideal's€first€materialÏbreach€of€the€equipment€leaseÏprecludes€or€limits€its€recoveryÏfrom€Agmark;Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` x` xà2.€Whether€Ideal€is€equitablyÏestopped€from€recovering€for€theÏalleged€repair€bills€againstÏAgmark;Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à3.€Whether€Agmark€failed€to€adequately€and€Ìà ` àà ¸ àcompetently€maintain€the€equipment€in€à x àÐ ,°"% Ðà ` àà ¸ àaccordance€with€the€terms€of€the€equipment€¼à ` àà ¸ àlease;€andÌÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` x` xà4.€Whether€Ideal's€laches€precludesÏits€recovery€in€this€case.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌÌÌÓòÓÒ°ÖÒÒ°äÒÌà  àà ` àAgmark€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€grantingÏsummary€judgment€because€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€exist.€ÏAgmark's€first€two€issues€pertain€to€a€breach€of€the€leaseÐ  :À04 Ðagreement€and€the€amount€of€estimated€repairs€required€for€theÏchassis.€€Among€Agmark's€assertions€is€that€Ideal€breached€theÏlease€agreement€by€its€failure€to€act€in€good€faith€regarding€theÏextension€of€the€lease€agreement.›ñ ñ׃ ×ñ ññ ñ׃×ñ ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Paragraph€25€of€the€leaseÐ   Ðagreement€provided€Agmark€with€an€option€to€extend€the€agreementÏon€a€month„to„month€basis€at€1.5%€of€the€current€fair€marketÏvalue€of€the€equipment:ÌÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` x` xàà  à25.€€€òòContract€Extensionóó.€€Ð ` ÐAgmark€Foods€has€the€option€toÏextend€the€lease€on€a€month€toÏmonth€basis€beyond€the€original€60Ïmonths,€at€a€rate€of€1.5%€of€theÏthen€current€fair€market€value€perÏmonth,€per€chassis,€but€in€no€caseÏshall€the€per€month,€per€chassis,Ïrate€exceed€the€original€rate.€ÏAgmark€Foods€shall€give€LESSOR€twoÏmonth's€prior€written€notice€ofÏsuch€election€to€extend.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àÓÓAgmark€contends€that€shortly€before€the€end€of€theÏlease€agreement,€Ideal€notified€Agmark€that€the€fair€market€valueÏof€the€chassis€it€had€leased€was€approximately€$13,250€perÏchassis.€€Pratt€Enterprises,€the€manufacturer€of€the€chassis€andÏthe€seller€of€the€chassis€to€Ideal,€supplied€Ideal€with€theÏappraisal.€€ÌÌà  àà ` àIdeal€maintains€that€the€chassis€were€worth€this€amountÏbecause€they€were€in€"excellent€running€condition,"€and€allÐ `6-0 Ðrequired€warranty€work€had€been€performed€by€Pratt€Enterprises.€ÏœBased›€on€Pratt's€appraisal,€the€monthly€rental€rate€on€theÏchassis€would€have€been€approximately€$200€per€chassis,€an€amountÏAgmark€considered€excessive.€€Thus,€Agmark€decided€not€toÏexercise€its€option€to€extend€the€lease.€€After€Agmark€returnedÏthe€equipment€to€Ideal,€Ideal€sold€eight€chassis€to€Pratt€forÏ$7,000€per€chassis,€not€$13,250€as€Pratt€had€appraised€eachÏchassis€only€months€before.€€Agmark€contends€that€had€IdealÏoffered€the€chassis€to€it€at€$7,000,€it€would€have€exercised€itsÏoption€to€extend€its€contract€with€Ideal€because€at€thatÏappraisal,€the€rental€rate€would€have€been€approximately€$100€perÏmonth€for€each€chassis,€not€$200€per€month.ÌÌÌà  àà ` àAgmark€contends€that€Ideal€preempted€Paragraph€25€ofÏthe€lease€agreement€by€its€"unreasonable€assertions€of€value"€ofÏthe€chassis.€€Agmark€further€argues€that€because€it€could€notÏextend€the€lease€for€the€chassis€at€a€fair€rate,€it€had€to€obtainÏother€equipment,€which€cost€more€than€the€leased€chassis€wouldÏhave€cost€had€the€lease€been€extended€under€Paragraph€25.€ÌÌÌà  àà ` àAgmark€asserts€that€Ideal€represented€to€it€in€a€letterÏdated€January€24,€1995€that€the€repair€bills,€if€there€were€any,Ïwould€be€forwarded€to€Agmark.€€However,€Agmark€asserts€that€noÏrepair€bills€were€sent€to€it€before€Ideal€initiated€this€lawsuitÏmore€than€a€year€after€the€chassis€were€returned€to€Ideal,€andÐ  :À04 Ðduring€this€time,€no€claims€were€asserted€by€Ideal€for€the€repairÏcosts.€€Furthermore,€Agmark€asserts€that€Pratt,€which€hadÏrepresented€Ô#†Xæ"XXXæ"º #ÔÔ‡ Xæ"XXXæ"Ôonly€a€few€months€before€the€end€of€the€leaseÔ#†Xæ"XX Xæ"±##ÔÔ‡Xæ"XXXæ"Ô€thatÐ  À Ðthe€leased€equipment€was€in€"excellent€running€condition,"€alsoÏsupplied€Ideal€with€a€repair€estimate€for€rebuilding€the€chassisÏand€ignoring€the€exception€for€"normal€wear€and€tear"€in€theÏlease€agreement.ÌÌÌà  àà ` àIdeal€argues€that€Ô#†Xæ"XXXæ" $#ÔÔ‡ Xæ"XXXæ"Ôthere€are€no€disputed€material€factsÐ @à Ðregarding€the€amount€of€damages€of€$44,598.18€andÔ#†Xæ"XX Xæ"w%#ÔÔ‡Xæ"XXXæ"Ô€that€AgmarkÐ  À Ðshould€be€held€to€the€express€terms€of€the€lease€agreement€itÏsigned.€€Paragraph€9€of€the€lease€agreement€states:ÌÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` x` xàà  à9.€òòMaintenance€and€Repairs:€NoÐ  #@ ÐWaiver€by€LESSOR:€Condition€onÏReturnóó.€€.€.€.€Upon€€receipt€ofÐ €%  ÐLEASED€EQUIPMENT€by€LESSOR,€theÏamount€of€damage€to€such€LEASEDÏEQUIPMENT€for€which€LESSEE€isÏresponsible€shall€be€conclusivelyÏestablished€at€an€off„hireÏinspection€by€LESSOR,€except€thatÏif€requested€by€LESSEE€prior€toÏreturn€of€LEASED€EQUIPMENT,€suchÏoff„hire€inspection€will€beÏconducted€by€a€qualified€contractorÏmutually€agreed€upon€between€LESSORÏand€LESSEE,€at€the€expense€ofÏLESSEE.€€Such€independentÏinspection€must€occur€within€fourÏ(4)€days€of€return€of€LEASEDÏEQUIPMENT€or€LESSOR's€determinationÏof€repair€cost€will€control.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÒ°Ö&ÒÒ°ä&ÒÓò&Óà  àà ` àÌâ âÐ @8à.2 Ðà  àà ` àIdeal€asserts€that€both€parties€are€"sophisticatedÏâ âcorporate€entities€that€entered€into€this€Master€Lease€AgreementÏat€arms„length."€€Ideal€maintains€that€Agmark€is€responsible€forÏdamages€to€the€chassis€under€the€express€terms€of€the€contract.€€€œÌÌà  àà ` àÔ#†Xæ"XXXæ"#&#ÔÔ‡Xæ"XXXæ"ÔIdeal›€explains€that€Pratt's€appraisal€of€$13,250€wasÐ À`  Ðdetermined€by€using€numbers€from€its€sales€department€and€assumedÏthat€the€chassis€would€be€in€excellent€running€condition€sinceÏall€the€warranty€work€had€been€performed.€€Ideal€contends€thatÏ"if€Agmark€thought€the€valuations€were€excessive,€nothingÏprevented€it€from€obtaining€its€own€estimates€of€fair€marketÏvalue€and€offering€to€exercise€its€option€based€on€suchÏvaluation."€€€Finally,€Ideal€argues€that€because€it€relied€onÏfair€market€value€estimates€determined€by€Pratt,€the€manufacturerÏof€the€chassis,€it€could€not€have€been€acting€in€bad€faith.ÌÌÌà  àà ` àA€Trial€Court's€decision€to€grant€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€is€not€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctness€onÏappeal.€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€€ThisÐ - #& ÐCourt€determines€whether€the€requirements€of€Rule€56€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€have€been€met.€€òòMason€v.óóÐ À0`'* ÐòòSeatonóó,€942€S.W.2d€470,€472€(Tenn.€1997).€€An€evaluation€of€aÐ  2@), Ðsummary€judgment€motion€must€address€these€questions:€"(1)Ïwhether€a€òòfactualóó€dispute€exists;€(2)€whether€the€disputed€factÐ `6-0 Ðis€òòmaterialóó€to€the€outcome€of€the€case;€and€(3)€whether€theÐ @8à.2 Ðdisputed€fact€creates€a€òògenuineóó€issue€for€trial."€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,Ð  :À04 Ð847€S.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€the€evidence€must€be€viewed€in€a€light€most€favorableÏto€the€nonmoving€party,€and€all€reasonable€inferences€must€beÏmade€in€the€nonmoving€party's€favor.€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210ò ò.€ó ó€Ð   ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€case€arises€from€a€dispute€between€Ideal€andÏAgmark€over€alleged€repair€costs€and€appraisals€of€the€fairÏmarket€value€of€several€leased€chassis.€€Both€parties€are€indeedÏcorporate€entities€that€appear€to€have€entered€freely€into€aÏlease€agreement.€€Both€parties€are€also€charged€with€a€duty€toÏdeal€fairly€and€in€good€faith€with€one€another.ÌÌÌÓðq ÓÓðÓà  àà ` àBased€upon€the€record€before€us,€Pratt€Enterprises,ÏInc.,€a€third€party,€appears€to€have€played€a€significant€role€inÏthe€relationship€between€Ideal€and€Agmark€regarding€the€repairÏcosts€and€the€appraisals€of€the€chassis.€€Pratt€manufactured€theÏcontainer€chassis€and€sold€them€initially€to€Ideal.€€PrattÏprovided€the€appraisal€of€the€fair€market€value€of€the€chassis€toÏAgmark€a€few€months€before€the€lease€was€to€expire.€€PrattÏcompleted€all€the€warranty€work€on€the€chassis.€€Pratt€providedÏthe€estimate€of€repairs€that€were€allegedly€required€after€AgmarkÏreturned€the€chassis€to€Ideal.€€Pratt€purchased€eight€chassisÏfrom€Ideal€for€approximately€one„half€the€fair€market€value€itÏhad€estimated€the€chassis€to€be€worth€only€months€before.€€œñ ñÌâ âÐ @8à.2 Ðà  àà ` àñ ñIn›€light€of€the€foregoing,€œwe€believe€a€reasonableÏâ âinference€could€be€drawn€that€the€value€of€the€returned€chassisÏexceeded€the€price€contended€by€Ideal€and€that€there€are€genuineÏissues€of€material€fact€whñù ñich€must€be€determined€by€trial.ñù ñ›ÌÌÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€vacated,€and€theÏcause€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€€Having€concluded€that€summary€judgment€was€notÏproperly€granted€in€our€consideration€of€Agmark's€first€twoÏissues,€we€need€not€address€its€remaining€issues.€€Costs€ofÏappeal€are€adjudged€against€œIdeal.Ô#†Xæ"XXXæ"µ+#Ôñü ñÔ‡ X¶1XXX¶1Ôñü ññý ñÐ   Ðñý ññý ñÌñý ññþ ñ›Ì›Ì›à  àñþ ññü ñÔ#†X¶1XX X¶1u:#Ôñü ññþ ñ›Ð    Лà  àñþ ññ ñÓÓñ ññÿ ñà  àñÿ ñ›à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_______________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.€ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€(Not€Participating)€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ð-$' ÐDon€T.€McMurray,€J.Ô‡ XbXXXæ"ԀРà.€%( ÐÌÔ#†Xæ"XX Xb4<#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ à