ÿWPC0! …# VU:a %› 0@¡w@á4! 5 0„D 0DÈ  0T n­h  0J 0T_ 0^³ 0h 0ry 0|ë 0†g 0í 1u}U,ò 0d B‚ D3ŸU,ÒU6þ 0@4B)tDC AMàU*-CW?šžÙZwiÑv~:vÓ¸ AO‹ÆÚ 0D  D/ä B!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <Ô6X9`+"Courier 10cpiX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Ó WDXY{ZD[\Ó€]^E_`Ó€»~g 3|xk(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXXxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@2 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 d&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òMarch€19,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòFor€convenience,€we€will€refer€to€the€parties€as€they€appeared€in€theÏtrial€court,€i.e.,€plaintiff€and€defendants.óóÌ ”Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòIt€is€disputed€as€to€which€of€the€parties€first€learned€that€Wal„MartÏwas€interested€in€relocating€its€Cleveland€store.€€For€the€purposes€of€thisÏappeal,€however,€we€find€this€dispute€to€be€of€no€significance.óóÌ PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThe€"Duff€property"€is€a€tract€of€land€which€adjoined€the€land€origi…nally€optioned€to€Wal„Mart€and€in€which€the€plaintiff€owned€an€interest.óóÌ _Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòWhile€it€is€acknowledged€that€there€is€some€overlapping€of€the€proper…ties,€it€is€minimal€and€no€case€is€made€for€a€commission€on€that€small€parcelÏof€land.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ&€++X„d&ÓÑ#€++Xd#ÑÔ€,ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€×%XXdÈdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€02/;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœKENMAN›€G.€LAY,€d/b/a€RETAIL€€€€€)à àBRADLEYÏCHANCERYÌDEVELOPMENT€GROUP,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9511„CH„00391Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€EARL€H.€HENLEYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌFAIRFIELD€DEVELOPMENT,€a€€€€€€€€)à àREVERSED€AND€DISMISSEDÌTennessee€General€Partnership,€€)ÌMARGOT€œEVERHART›,€Partner,€ANN€€€)ÌM.€STAFFORD,€Partner,€and€€€€€€€)ÌMAX€œEVERHART›,€Individually,€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellants€)ÌÌÌÌÌRANDY€SELLERS,€Cleveland,€for€Appellants.ÌÌÌD.€MITCHELL€BRYANT,€œJenne›,€Scott€&€Bryant,€Cleveland,€for€Appel…lee.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThis€is€an€action€to€collect€a€real€estate€commission.€€TheÏtrial€court€resolved€the€issues€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€and€theÏdefendants€appealed.€€We€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏand€dismiss€the€case.× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€only€issue€raised€by€the€appellants€challenges€the€pro…priety€of€the€trial€œcourt's›€judgment€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffÏunder€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Simply€stated,Ïthe€issue€is€whether€or€not€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏœfindings€of€the€trial€court.›ÌÌà àAs€we€have€often€stated,€our€review€of€a€non„jury€case€is€òòdeÏnovoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presump…tion€of€the€correctness€of€its€findings,€unless€the€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Proce…dure,€Rule€13(d).€€No€presumption€attaches€to€the€trial€court'sÏconclusions€of€law.€€In€a€òòde€novoóó€review,€the€parties€are€entitledÏto€a€reexamination€of€the€whole€matter€of€law€and€fact€and€thisÏcourt€should€render€the€judgment€warranted€by€the€law€and€evi…dence.€òòœThornburg›€v.€Chaseóó,€606€S.W.2d€672,€675€(Tenn.€App.€1980);€ÏòòAmerican€Buildings€Co.€v.€Whiteóó,€640€S.W.2d€569,€576€(Tenn.€App.Ï1982);€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€Rule€36.ÌÌà àFew€material€facts€are€in€dispute.€€The€record€reflects€thatÏthe€defendants,€at€all€times€material,€were€the€owners€of€a€ratherÏlarge€tract€of€commercial€land€in€the€City€of€Cleveland.€€TheÏdefendants€sought€to€develop€their€property€by€means€of€con‚struc…tion€of€a€strip€mall€within€which€specific€properties€would€beÏleased€to€tenants.€€The€defendants€employed€the€plaintiff,€byÏwritten€agreement,€to€attempt€to€procure€prospective€tenants€andÏto€develop€the€property.€€The€agreement€was€for€an€initial€periodÍof€ninety€(90)€days,€however,€the€parties€continued€to€operateÏunder€the€terms€set€out€in€the€agreement€for€a€period€of€approxi…mately€three€years.€€Under€the€terms€of€the€agreement,€the€plain…tiff€was€to€receive€a€commission€based€on€square€footage€of€prop…erty€leased€by€tenants€procured€by€him.€€In€addition€to€the€com…mission€for€the€leases,€the€defendants€were€to€pay€the€plaintiff'sÏexpenses.€€There€is€no€dispute€concerning€the€expenses.€€It€isÏimportant€to€note€that€the€written€agreement€between€the€partiesÏand€their€continued€relationship€concerned€òòò òleased€propertiesóóó óÏonly.€€There€was€no€written€agreement€concerning€a€sale€of€proper…ty,€nor€is€there€any€evidence€œthat€a€sale›€was€œcontemplated›€œby›€theÏparties€at€the€time€the€agreement€was€entered€into.ÌÌà àIn€the€plaintiff's€complaint,€he€sought€as€an€element€of€hisÏdamages,€the€commissions€that€would€have€been€due€on€three€pro…spective€tenants€which€he€found€for€the€defendants€provided€theÏleases€had€borne€fruit.€€At€the€trial,€the€claim€for€these€commis…sions€was€summarily€dismissed.€€There€is€no€appeal€from€thisÏdecision€of€the€court.€€The€parties'€written€agreement€and€exten…sion€thereof€by€implication€has€no€further€bearing€on€the€issuesÏbefore€the€court.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff's€present€claim€is€for€a€commission€to€which€heÏclaims€he€is€entitled€by€virtue€of€an€oral€agreement€betweenÏhimself€and€the€defendants.€€The€defendants€deny€that€there€wasÏever€an€agreement€between€themselves€and€the€plaintiff€whereby€heÏwas€to€receive€a€commission€for€a€sale€of€property.ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€the€case€are€relatively€simple.€€The€plaintiffÏclaims€that€he€learned€that€Wal„Mart€wanted€to€relocate€its€storeÏin€Cleveland.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€He€contacted€an€agent€of€Wal„Mart€and€arranged€aÏmeeting€of€the€various€interested€parties.€€It€was€at€this€meetingÏthat€the€parties€surprisingly€learned€that€Wal„Mart€was€not€inter…ested€in€leasing€property€but€œwas›€interested€in€purchasing€proper…ty€for€a€new€store.€€The€plaintiff€claims€that€the€defendant,ÏEverhart,€at€this€meeting,€orally€agreed€to€pay€him€a€three€per…cent€(3%)€commission€if€the€sale€was€consummated.€€The€defendantsÍdeny€that€there€was€an€agreement€to€pay€the€plaintiff€a€commissionÏon€the€sale.ÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Max€Everhart,€as€agent€for€œthe€other›€defen…dants,€had€no€authority€to€sell€the€real€estate€of€his€principals,Ïtherefore,€it€was€necessary€to€defer€a€decision€on€the€sale€untilÏhe€could€confer€with€the€true€property€owners.€€After€consulta…tion,€Mr.€Everhart€was€authorized€to€sell€the€property€to€Wal„Mart.ÌÌà àSubsequently,€Wal„Mart€proposed€to€enter€into€an€optionÏagreement,€œwhereby,›€òòinter€aliaóó,€Wal„Mart€would€have€an€option€toÏpurchase€the€property€for€a€period€of€six€months.€€Wal„Mart€paidÏ$10,000.00€for€the€option.€€The€original€proposed€option€agreementÏalso€contained€a€provision€that€the€plaintiff€was€to€receive€aÏcommission€of€three€percent€(3%)€of€the€sales€price.€The€defen…dants€found€the€option€agreement€to€be€unacceptable.€€Subsequent…ly,€a€new€option€agreement€was€entered€into€between€the€defendantsÏand€Wal„Mart.€€The€new€option€agreement€changed€some€of€the€termsÏof€the€option€agreement€among€which€was€the€omission€of€the€com…mission€for€the€plaintiff.€€At€this€point€the€business€relation…ship€between€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendants€ended.ÌÌà àThe€option€agreement€between€the€defendants€and€Wal„Mart€wasÏnot€exercised€during€the€six€month€period,€however,€the€optionÏagreement€was€amended€to€grant€to€Wal„Mart€the€right€to€extend€theÏperiod€of€the€option€upon€payment€of€additional€sums.€€Wal„MartÏdid€exercise€its€right€to€extend€the€option€through€April€1,€1992,Ïand€paid€the€defendants€an€additional€$5,000.00€for€a€total€ofÏ$15,000.00€in€option€money.€€Wal„Mart€found€the€property€to€beÏunacceptable€and€elected€not€to€exercise€its€option€which,€there…fore,€expired€by€its€own€terms.ÌÌà àSome€fifteen€(15)€months€later,€the€defendants€executed€aÏwarranty€deed€to€Wal„Mart€for€a€tract€of€land€adjoining€andÏslightly€overlapping€the€property€which€was€the€subject€of€theÏoption.€€The€property€was€sold€to€Wal„Mart€for€a€purchase€price€of€Ï$1,774,000.00.€€It€is€on€this€amount€that€the€plaintiff€claims€aÏcommission.ÌÌà àSimply€stated,€the€only€issue€before€us€and€that€before€theÏtrial€court€was€whether€an€enforceable€oral€contract€existedÏbetween€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendants€whereby€the€defendantsÏwould€pay€a€three€percent€(3%)€commission€to€the€plaintiff€if€òòò òanyóóó óÏof€the€defendants'€property€was€sold€to€Wal„Mart.€€The€chancellor,Ïin€his€decision€announced€from€the€bench,€made€no€specific€findingÏthat€a€contract€existed.€€In€resolving€the€issue€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiff,€the€trial€court€either€implicitly€found€that€such€aÏcontract€existed€or€awarded€damages€to€the€plaintiff€on€an€equita…ble€basis.€€From€his€findings,€we€are€unable€to€make€that€determi…nation.ÌÌà àSpecifically,€the€chancellor€found:ÌÌÓÓà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌà8 àà àIt's€stated€that€the€original€agreement€was€forÏleasing€purposes,€and€I€think€that's€exactly€right,€butÏwhen€Wal„Mart€came€into€the€picture€and€it€became€obvi…ous€that€they€were€interested€in€buying€and€not€leasingÏthat€did€not€seem€to€me€to€terminate€the€associationÏbetween€Mr.€Lay€[the€plaintiff]€and€Mr.€Everhart€[one€ofÏthe€defendants].€€It€was€negotiated€and€remained€in€negoƒtiation€till€there€was€a€little€bit€of€dispute€over€theÏDuff€property,€and€then€when€the€contract€was€submittedÏto€Mr.€Everhart€he€said€that€he€did€not€feel€that€theÍthree€percent€brokerage€fee€should€be€in€there.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Mr.ÏEverhart€stated€that€they€had€never€reached€any€kind€ofÏagreement€on€brokerage€fee€and€Mr.€Lay€says€that€theyÏhad.ÌÌà8 àà à...€[œI]t›€is€not€disputed€that€Mr.€Lay€is€the€oneÏthat€contacted€them€[Wal„Mart],€brought€them€onto€theÏscene,€and€was€conducting€the€negotiations€and€continuedÏto€do€so€up€until€his€services€were€terminated€at€theÏtime€the€proposal€was€offered€to€Mr.€Everhart.€€And€atÏthat€time,€Mr.€Everhart€chose€to€discharge€Mr.€Lay€fromÏfurther€activities€in€the€matter.ÌÌà8 àà à...€I€think€there€is€validity€to€this€case.€€And€IÏdon't€think€that€it€matters€that€the€specific€propertyÏbeing€discussed€involved€at€the€time€of€the€originalÏagreement€with€ð"ð€or€discussion€with€Wal„Mart€was€laterÏtransferred€over€to€the€present€location€of€Wal„Mart.€€IÏdon't€think€that's€important€to€this€case.€€I€think€theÏfact€is€that€Mr.€Everhart€had€exactly€the€same€thing€inÏthe€way€of€ownership€at€that€time€that€Mr.€Everhart'sÏ(sic)€services€were€terminated€as€he€did€when€he€laterÏcontacted€Mr.€Henderson€seven€months€later,€or€wheneverÏit€was.€The€court's€going€to€give€judgment€in€thisÏmatter€for€the€brokerage€fee€of€three€percent.ÌÌÓÓÌà àIn€any€event,€we€believe€that€the€trial€judge€was€in€error€inÏawarding€a€brokerage€fee.€€Without€question,€a€broker€and€a€prop…erty€owner€may€enter€into€an€oral€listing€agreement€where,€uponÏsale,€the€broker€is€entitled€to€collect€his€contract€fee.€€TheÍexistence€and€terms€of€the€agreement€must€be€established,€however,Ïby€clear,€cogent€and€convincing€evidence.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAn€oral€brokerage€contract€for€the€sale€of€realÏestate€is€enforceable€in€Tennessee.€Statements€madeÏbetween€the€seller€and€broker€are€characterized€as€aÏcontract€if€the€proof€is€clear,€cogent€and€convincing.€ÏòòAlexander€œv.C.C.›€Powell€Realty€Co.€Incóó.,€535€S.W.2d€154Ï(Tenn.€App.€1975).€ÌÌòòParks€v.€Morrisóó€an€unreported€case€from€this€court,€opinion€filedÏAugust€30,€1995.ÌÌÌÌà àIn€òòAlexanderóó,€cited€above,€we€find€the€following€statement:ÌÌÌÌà8 àà àDefendant€correctly€contends€that€in€this€state€aÏreal€estate€broker€may€not€recover€under€an€oral€broker…age€contract€unless€he€can€establish€its€essential€termsÏby€clear,€cogent€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòAlexanderóó€atÏ157.ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€prove€byÏclear,€cogent€and€convincing€evidence€either€the€existence€of€aÏcontract€or€the€terms€thereof.ÌÌà àFirstly,€we€note€that€the€only€testimony€offered€by€theÏplaintiff€concerning€the€existence€of€a€listing€contract€andÏcommission€œwas›€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àAll€right.€€Did€you€at€that€meeting€or€after€thatÏmeeting€have€any€discussions€with€Mr.€EverhartÏregarding€a€possible€commission€òòif€a€sale€tookÏplace€on€this€propertyóó.€€(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àA.à àAt€that€meeting€I€mentioned€to€him€that€I€wouldÏneed€a€commission€òòon€this€saleóó.€€(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àTell€the€court€as€best€you€can€recall€the€nature€ofÏthe€conversation€about€a€possible€commission.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àA.à àHe€said,€"how€much"?€And€I€said,€"well,€six€per…cent."€€And€he€said,€"that's€too€much."€€I€said,Ï"well€he's€[Wal„Mart's€agent]€getting€three€per…cent,€just€make€mine€three€percent."ÌÌÓÓÌà àIt€is€important€to€note€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€testifyÏthat€the€defendant€accepted€his€offer.€€The€only€other€and€furtherÏtestimony€by€the€plaintiff€relating€to€commission€is€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà àQ.à à...€Under€the€terms€of€this€option€agreement€[theÏoriginal€proposed€agreement],€under€the€closingÏcosts€section€to€be€paid€by€seller€brokerage,€realÏestate€broker's€commission€of€three€percent€of€theÏpurchase€price€to€Ken€Lay€Real€Estate.€€Is€thatÏright?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àA.à àThat's€right.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àDid€you€present€or€take€this€option€to€purchaseÏagreement€to€Mr.€Everhart?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àA.à àI€did.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àAnd€tell€me,€if€you€would,€what€was€Mr.€Everhart'sÏreaction€at€that€point€in€time€regarding€thisÏoption€agreement?ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àA.à àAfter€review€he€said,€"I€can't€sign€this.€€What'sÏthis€commission€doing€in€here?"€€And€I€said,€"WeÏdiscussed€that."€€He€said,€"Well€I'm€not€payingÏit."ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€record€does€not€disclose€any€corroboration€of€the€plain…tiffs€testimony€whatever.ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€defendant,€Mr.€Everhart,€testified€as€follows:Ì̛̜à8 àà0 àà àQ.à àMr.€Lay€says€that€specifically€at€that€meetingÏ[where€it€was€learned€by€the€parties€that€Wal„MartÏwanted€to€buy]€Mr.€Lay€discussed€with€œyou€you›€(sic)Ïpaying€him€a€commission€should€you€ultimatelyÏdecide€to€sell.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àA.à àThe€first€notice€I€had€that€Mr.€Lay€wanted€a€comƒmission€was€when€it€showed€up€in€the€option€docu…ment.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àQ.à àAll€right.€So€ð"ð€ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àA.à àHe€never€said€a€word€about€a€commission€at€all.ÌÌà8 àòòCOURTóó:€Well,€when€you€called€him€and€asked€him,€didn'tÏyou€anticipate€that€he'd€be€wanting€some€kind€of€remunƒeration?ÌÌà8 àòòWITNESSóó:€€I€did.€€And€I€would€gladly€have€remuneratedÏhim€for€a€lease,€but€our€agreement€had€no€concept€of€aÏsale.ÌÌÓÓÌà àœSecondly,›€we€note€that€the€plaintiff's€testimony€speaks€inÏterms€of€òòò òthis€propertyó óóó.€€Further,€it€has€not€been€demonstrated€byÏclear,€cogent€and€convincing€evidence,€or€otherwise,€that€theÏparties€had€a€meeting€of€the€minds.€€€Reserving€any€benefit€ofÏdoubt€unto€the€plaintiff,€however,€it€is€clear€that,€even€if€thereÏwere€a€contract,€the€contract€contemplated€only€that€tract€of€landÏupon€which€an€option€was€taken.€€It€cannot€be€expanded€to€includeÏall€the€property€of€the€defendants,€adjoining€or€not.ÌÌà àœThirdly,›€there€has€been€no€showing€by€the€plaintiff€of€theÏterms€of€the€alleged€contract€other€than€the€three€percent€(3%)Ïcommission€to€which€he€claims€to€be€entitled.€€Assuming€òòarguendoóóÏthat€the€plaintiff€had,€in€fact,€reached€an€agreement€with€theÏdefendant€for€a€three€percent€(3%)€commission,€there€is€no€evi…dence€in€the€record€to€establish€the€time€period€during€which€heÏwould€be€entitled€to€a€commission,€duration€of€the€contract€orÏevidence€relating€to€the€sale€of€other€property.€€If€the€propertyÏfinally€bought€from€the€defendants€by€Wal„Mart€had€been€the€sameÏproperty€described€in€the€option,€perhaps€we€could€be€more€sympa…thetic€with€the€plaintiff's€position.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWe€find,€however,€that€the€proof€of€the€Plaintiffs,Ïeven€though€accepted€as€true,€is€too€indefinite€toÏcreate€an€enforceable€contract€as€a€matter€of€law.€It€isÏwell€established€in€this€jurisdiction€that€a€contractÏcan€be€expressed,€implied,€written,€or€oral,€but€anÏenforceable€contract€must,€among€other€elements,€resultÏfrom€a€meeting€of€the€minds€and€must€be€sufficientlyÏdefinite€to€be€enforced.€òòJohnson€v.€Central€NationalÏIns.€Co.€of€Omaha,€Nebóó.,€356€S.W.2d€277,€281€(Tenn.Ï1961);€òòPrice€v.€Mercury€Supply€Co.,€Incóó.,€682€S.W.2d€924Ï(Tenn.€App.€1984).€The€contemplated€mutual€assent€andÏmeeting€of€the€minds€cannot€be€accomplished€by€theÏunilateral€action€of€one€party,€nor€can€it€be€accom…plished€by€an€ambiguous€course€of€dealing€between€theÏtwo€parties€from€which€differing€inferences€regardingÏcontinuation€or€modification€of€the€original€contractÏmight€reasonably€be€drawn.€òòœBatson›€v.€Pleasant€ViewÏUtility€œDist›óó.,€592€S.W.2d€578,€582€(Tenn.€App.€1979);ÏòòœBalderacchi›€v.€Ruthóó,€36€Tenn.€App.€421,€256€S.W.2d€390Ï(Tenn.€App.€1953).€In€addition,€a€mere€expression€ofÏintent€or€a€general€willingness€to€do€something€does€notÍamount€to€an€"offer."€òòœTalley›€v.€Curtisóó,€129€S.W.2d€1099,Ï23€Tenn.€App.€181€(1939).ÌÌòòœJamestowne›€on€Signal,€Inc.€œv.›€First€Fed.€S€&€Lóó,€807€S.W.2d€559,Ï564€(Tenn.€App.€œ1990).Ì›ÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€above€authorities€are€conƒtrolling€when€applied€to€the€œfacts€in›€this€case.€€We€find€that€theÏplaintiff€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proof€and€must€fail.ÌÌà àWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€dismiss€theÏaction.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€appellee€and€this€case€is€remandedÏto€the€trial€court€for€the€collection€of€costs€and€entry€of€aÏjudgment€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌœÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€åÏXXdÈXXdÈ7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌKENMAN€G.€LAY,€d/b/a€RETAIL€€€€€)à àBRADLEY€CHANCERYÌDEVELOPMENT€GROUP,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9511„CH„00391Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€EARL€H.€HENLEYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌFAIRFIELD€DEVELOPMENT,€a€€€€€€€€)à àREVERSED€AND€DISMISSEDÌTennessee€General€Partnership,€€)ÌMARGOT€EVERHART,€Partner,€ANN€€€)ÌM.€STAFFORD,€Partner,€and€€€€€€€)ÌMAX€EVERHART,€Individually,€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellants€)ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòORDERóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Bradley€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÍUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€was€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andÏdismiss€the€action.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€appellee€and€this€caseÏis€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€collection€of€costs€andÏentry€of€a€judgment€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAMÌ›