ÿWPC# …#†VUNÜ %* 00U:L 4† š 0J© 0Tó 0^G 0h¥ 0r 0| 0†û 0 1uU,† 0d²U,U>BU*€U*ªB)ÔDCý AM@Øv~e BãvÓ D3Ó 0@ AOFÆ• 08[ 0D“ D/× B˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0ÙP N–ÿF·^9ŸÈ9 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ô%$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XhXXXÔÓÓÑ7€hXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular3x2øð dddddd3|xE2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÎÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDecember20,Ï1995ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3N$¢¢Ý ƒ%!ÝÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑѰÑÑXÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XøòXXXÔÓÓÑ7€õXXdìXXdì7ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÓÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ ° ÑÑ X ÑÓÓò òÑ7€õXXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏJACKSONÌòòà@ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌDONALD€L.€MOTT,€à àà àà à)ÌMURL€KENNAMORE,€andà àà à)ÌK€&€M€PETROLEUM€CORP.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà àò ò)€€Fayette€ChanceryÏNo.€10018ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Appeal€No.Ï02A01„9410„CH„00244Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌD.€DEAN€GRAVES€and€SECURITYà à)ÌTITLE€INSURANCE€CO.,€INC.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendants/Appellantà àà àò ò)ÌÌÌó óà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THEÏCHANCERY€COURT€OF€€FAYETTE€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€SOMERVILLE,ÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOHN€HILLÏCHISOLM,€CHANCELLORÌÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|óÿ` 81 `€€LßÌÌÌÌÌò òROBERT€B.€C.€HALEÌWARING€COXÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Appellant€GravesÌÌÌò òH.€MORRIS€DENTONÌDENTON€&€CARYÌó óBolivar,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óà àÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAppellant€D.€Dean€Graves€("Graves")€appeals€the€chancellor's€decisionÏrequiring€Ñ7€õXXdìXXdì7ÑGraves€to€specifically€perform€a€contract€by€purchasing€an€$85,000€parcel€ofÏreal€estate€offered€for€sale€by€the€Appellees,€Donald€L.€Mott€("Mott")€and€MurlÏKennamore€("Kennamore").€ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€largely€undisputed.€€On€September€11,€1991,€GravesÏentered€into€a€contract€with€Mott€and€Kennamore€to€purchase€10.7€acres€ofÏunimproved€real€property€located€in€Fayette€County,€Tennessee.€€€The€property€wasÏoriginally€owned€by€K€&€M€Petroleum,€Inc.,€a€now€defunct€corporation€of€which€MottÏand€Kennamore€were€sole€shareholders.€€As€originally€executed,€the€contract€gaveÏGraves€the€option€to€purchase€the€entire€10.7€acre€parcel€for€$85,000.€€The€contractÏprovided€that€closing€would€take€place€nine€months€after€Graves€deposited€$1,000Ïearnest€money€in€escrow.€€ÌÌà àOn€March€24,€1992,€the€parties€agreed€to€execute€an€amendment€to€the€originalÏcontract.€€€Under€the€terms€of€the€amended€agreement,€Graves€had€the€option€to€sellÏone€acre€of€the€10.7€acre€parcel€prior€to€closing€on€the€entire€parcel.€€€The€language€ofÏthe€contract€amendment€provided€in€pertinent€part:Ìà8 à(b)€€òòSection€2.óó€€Place€and€Time€of€Closing.€€Shall€be€amended€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€current€paragraphs€(a)€and€(b)€shall€be€deleted,€and€the€followingÏinserted.Ìà8 à(a)€€Subject€to€the€conditions€herein€having€been€met€or€waived,€theÏClosing€will€take€place€on€or€before€January€1,€1993,€or€the€first€workingÏday€thereafter,€at€the€offices€of€the€closing€attorney.€€At€Purchaser's€soleÏoption,€Purchaser€may€close€and/or€assign€his€interest€€(as€defined€byÏthis€agreement),€in€a€one€acre€parcel€located€at€the€intersection€ofÏHighway€57€and€Highway€18€prior€to€the€scheduled€closing€of€the€wholeÏproperty€as€noted€above.€€In€the€event€Purchaser€does€close€and/orÏassign€his€interest€in€the€one€acre€parcel,€the€total€sum€of€TwentyÏThousand€Dollars€($20,000)€shall€be€entered€into€escrow€from€the€saleÏand/or€assignment€as€the€total€proceeds€of€Purchaser's€resale€of€theÏparcel€(and/or€assignment€of€his€interest€in€the€parcel),€and€be€applied€toÏPurchaser's€account€at€closing€of€the€balance€of€the€property.ÌÌà8 à(b)€€In€the€event€Purchaser€closes€the€one€acre€and€escrows€theÏadditional€money,€Purchaser€shall€automatically€waive€the€conditions€ofÏPurchaser's€obligations€on€the€balance€of€the€property,€in€Section€7,Ïparagraphs€(a)€€Utilities,€(b)€Inspections,€(c)€Zoning/Use,€(g)€Permits,€andÏ(k)€Financing,€and€closing€of€the€one€acre€parcel€shall€serve€asÏPurchaser's€notice€to€close€the€balance€of€the€property€as€required€inÏparagraph€(a)€above€of€this€section.ÌÌà8 àAll€other€terms€and€conditions€of€the€agreement€shall€remain€in€full€forceÏand€effect.ÌÓÓÌà àIn€a€letter€dated€October€16,€1991,€Graves€contacted€Thomas€Sasser,€owner€ofÏSasser€Oil€Company€and€a€distributor€for€Exxon,€in€an€effort€to€sell€the€single€acre.€€It€isÏevident€from€Graves'€correspondence€to€Sasser,€as€well€as€from€Graves'€testimony€atÏtrial,€that€Graves'€original€intention€was€to€purchase€all€and€develop€most€of€the€10.7Íacre€site.€Graves€sold€the€one€acre€parcel€to€Sasser€on€April€24,€1992,€for€$60,000.€ÏAccording€to€the€terms€of€the€amended€agreement,€Graves€placed€$18,169.81€from€theÏsale€of€the€single€acre€in€escrow.€€That€sum€was€to€be€applied€to€Graves'€account€uponÏthe€sale€of€the€balance€of€the€property.€ÌÌà àIt€is€at€this€juncture€in€the€parties'€transaction€that€a€dispute€arose.€€€There€is€noÏquestion€that€on€January€1,€1993,€the€date€established€for€closing€the€balance€of€theÏproperty,€Graves€failed€to€close.€€Graves€admits€that€he€breached€the€parties'€contract,Ïbut€argues€that€the€Appellees'€sole€remedy€is€set€forth€in€the€contract's€liquidatedÏdamages€clause.€€That€clause€states:ÌÓÓò òà8 àSection€9.€€Non„performance.ó óÌà8 à(b)€€If€Purchaser€defaults,€Seller€and€Purchaser€agree€that€it€will€beÏextremely€difficult€or€impractical€to€fix€Seller's€actual€damages.€ÏTherefore,€the€Earnest€Money€shall€be€delivered€to€Seller€as€liquidatedÏdamages€for€loss€of€a€bargain€and€not€as€a€penalty.€€Purchaser€will€thenÏbe€released€from€all€liability€to€Seller€related€to€this€Agreement,€suchÏliquidated€damages€being€Seller's€sole€remedy.€ÌÓÓÌà àMott€and€Kennamore€argue€that,€pursuant€to€the€terms€of€the€amended€contract,ÏGraves€became€bound€to€close€on€the€balance€of€the€10.7€acre€parcel€after€heÏexercised€his€option€to€sell€the€single€acre.€€The€Appellees€further€contend,€and€theÏlower€court€so€found,€that€Graves'€failure€to€close€on€the€balance€of€the€propertyÏentitles€Appellees€to€the€remedy€of€specific€performance.€€In€support€of€their€argument,ÏMott€and€Kennamore€cite€the€language€of€the€contract€amendment:€€€€"Subject€to€theÏconditions€herein€having€been€met€or€waived,€the€Closing€will€take€place€on€or€beforeÏJanuary€1,€1993.€.€.€.€In€the€event€Purchaser€does€close€.€.€.€his€interest€in€this€one€acreÏparcel,€the€total€sum€of€.€.€.$20,000€shall€be€entered€into€escrow€from€the€sale€.€.€.€andÏbe€applied€to€Purchaser's€account€at€closing€of€the€balance€of€the€property."€€€€TheÍamendment€also€states:€€"closing€of€the€one€acre€parcel€shall€serve€as€Purchaser'sÏnotice€to€close€the€balance€of€the€property€as€required€in€paragraph€(a)€above€of€thisÏsection."€€ÌÌà àThe€interpretation€of€a€written€agreement€is€a€matter€of€law€and€not€of€fact.€ÏòòAPAC„Tennessee,€Inc.€v.€J.M.€Humphries€Const.€Co.óó,€732€S.W.2d€601€(Tenn.€App.Ï1986).€€Thus,€this€Court's€scope€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€noÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€trial€court's€conclusions€of€law.€€òòAdams€v.€DeanÏRoofing€Co.óó,€715€S.W.2d€341€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€ÌÌà àIt€is€well€established€that€the€cardinal€rule€for€interpretation€of€contracts€is€toÏascertain€the€intention€of€the€parties€and€to€give€effect€to€that€intention€consistent€withÏlegal€principles.€€òòRob€Pearsall€Motors,€Inc.€v.€Regal€Chrysler„Plymouth,€Inc.óó,€521ÏS.W.2d€578€(Tenn.€1975).€€A€primary€objective€in€the€construction€of€a€contract€is€toÏdiscover€the€intention€of€the€parties€from€a€consideration€of€the€whole€contract.€€òòMcKayÏv.€Louisville€&€N.€R.R.€Co.óó,€133€Tenn.€590,€182€S.W.€874€(1916).€€In€construingÏcontracts,€the€words€expressing€the€parties'€intentions€should€be€given€their€usual,Ïnatural€and€ordinary€meaning.€€òòTaylor€v.€White€Stores,€Inc.óó,€707€S.W.2d€514€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1985).€€In€òòHamblen€County€v.€City€of€Morristownóó,€656€S.W.2d€331,€334€(Tenn.Ï1983),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à'The€court€in€interpreting€words€or€other€acts€of€the€partiesÏputs€itself€in€the€position€which€they€occupied€at€the€time€theÏcontract€was€made.€€In€applying€the€appropriate€standard€ofÏinterpretation€even€to€an€agreement€that€on€its€face€is€freeÏfrom€ambiguity€it€is€permissible€to€consider€the€situation€ofÏthe€parties€and€the€accompanying€circumstances€at€the€timeÏit€was€entered€into„„not€for€the€purpose€of€modifying€orÏenlarging€or€curtailing€its€terms,€but€to€aid€in€determining€theÍmeaning€to€be€given€to€the€agreement.'€€òòRestatement€ofÏContractsóó,€ðð€235(d)€and€Comment.ÓÓÌÓÓà8 àà8 à'€.€.€.€Intention€or€meaning€in€a€contract€may€be€manifestedÏor€conveyed€either€expressly€or€impliedly,€and€it€isÏfundamental€that€which€is€plainly€or€necessarily€implied€inÏthe€language€of€a€contract€is€as€much€a€part€of€it€as€thatÏwhich€is€expressed.€€If€it€can€be€plainly€seen€from€all€theÏprovisions€of€the€instrument€taken€together€that€theÏobligation€in€question€was€within€the€contemplation€of€theÏparties€when€making€their€contract€or€is€necessary€to€carryÏtheir€intention€into€effect,€the€law€will€imply€the€obligationÏand€enforce€it.'€€17€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòContractsóó€ðð€255€(1964).€ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€present€case,€this€Court€is€presented€with€a€single€contract,€the€provisionsÏof€which€cannot€be€harmonized.€€The€amendment€to€the€contract€neither€refers€to€norÏdeletes€the€contract's€liquidated€damages€clause,€yet€the€rights€contained€in€theÏamendment€necessarily€negate€the€possibility€of€exercising€the€contract's€liquidatedÏdamages€provisions.€€We€cannot€ascertain€the€parties'€intentions€from€the€words€of€theÏcontract€alone.€€Thus,€we€look€to€the€circumstances€which€existed€at€the€time€theÏagreements€were€executed€in€order€to€determine€the€parties'€intentions.€€òòHamblenÏCountyóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€334.ÌÌà àWhen€the€parties€executed€the€original€contract,€Graves€placed€$1,000€earnestÏmoney€in€escrow.€€By€doing€so,€he€retained€the€right€to€buy€10.7€acres€of€property€for€aÏperiod€of€nine€months.€€€The€parties'€original€agreement€was€essentially€an€optionÏcontract.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòPinney€v.€Tarpleyóó,€686€S.W.2d€574,€580€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€ÏAs€is€typical€of€real€estate€option€contracts,€Graves€agreed€to€forfeit€the€escrow€money,Ïas€liquidated€damages€to€the€sellers€(Appellees),€in€the€event€that€he€failed€toÏpurchase€the€property€at€the€expiration€of€the€option€term.€€€ÌÌà àWhen€the€amendment€to€the€original€contract€was€executed€in€March€of€1992,Ïthe€nature€of€the€contract€changed.€€The€amendment€required€Graves€to€place€$20,000Ïfrom€the€sale€of€the€one€acre€parcel€into€escrow.€€It€further€provided€that€the€$20,000Ïsum€"shall"€be€applied€to€Graves'€account€at€closing€of€the€balance€of€the€property.€ÏThe€amendment€states€that€closing€of€the€one€acre€parcel€"shall"€serve€as€Graves'Ïnotice€to€close€the€balance€of€the€property.€Finally,€Graves'€actions€were€consistentÏwith€a€complete€understanding€of€the€amendment's€terms.€€If,€after€amending€theÏcontract,€Graves€had€failed€to€close€on€either€the€single€acre€or€the€balance€of€theÏproperty,€the€Appellees'€remedy€would€have€been€limited€to€$1,000€in€liquidatedÏdamages.€€However,€€having€exercised€his€option€to€sell€the€one€acre€parcel,€we€findÏthat€Graves€was€bound€to€close€on€the€balance€of€the€property.€ÌÌà àThe€chancellor€awarded€Appellees€the€remedy€of€specific€performance.€€ÏGraves€argues€that€the€Appellees€failed€to€prove€that€they€suffered€damages€and€areÏthus€not€entitled€to€specific€performance.€€Specific€performance€is€an€equitableÏremedy.€€òòGRW€Enters.,€Inc.€v.€Davisóó,€797€S.W.2d€606,€614€(Tenn.€App.€1990)€(citingÏòòT.J.€Moss€Tie€Co.€v.€Hillóó,€191€Tenn.€582,€586,€235€S.W.2d€587,€588€(1951)).€€It€isÏavailable€to€either€the€buyer€or€the€seller,€subject€to€the€trial€court's€discretion,€€whereÏan€award€of€damages€cannot€make€the€aggrieved€party€whole.€€òòShuptrine€v.€Quinnóó,Ï597€S.W.2d€728,€730€(Tenn.€1979).€€An€award€of€specific€performance€is€€particularlyÏappropriate€when€dealing€with€contracts€for€the€sale€of€real€property,€because€of€theÏunique€nature€of€land.€€òòGRW€Enters.óó,€797€S.W.2d€at€614.€€€€€In€òòLane€v.€AssociatedÏHousing€Developersóó,€767€S.W.2d€640,€642€(Tenn.€App.€1988)€the€court,€quotingÍòòGibson's€Suits€in€Chanceryóó,€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àIf€a€contract€has€all€the€essentials€of€validity€.€.€.€and€if€compensation€inÏdamages€for€its€breach€is€impracticable,€or€would€be€inadequate,€aÏcomplaint€will€be€maintained€for€specific€performance.€€The€broad€groundÏof€jurisdiction€in€such€cases€is€the€inadequacy,€or€impracticability,€ofÏdamages€to€do€complete€justice€to€the€injured€party.€€If€the€contractÏrelates€to€real€estate€and€is€in€writing,€and€the€foregoing€requirements€areÏsatisfied,€specific€performance€will€be€decreed,€for€damages€cannotÏadequately€represent€real€property.€€ÌÓÓÌà àAn€award€of€damages€is€neither€adequate€nor€practical€in€the€present€case.€ÏThe€Appellees€contracted€to€sell€the€entire€10.7€acre€parcel€to€Graves€for€$85,000.€ÏGraves€sold€one€acre,€comprising€the€corner€lot€of€the€parcel,€for€$60,000.€€Not€only€isÏthe€tract€no€longer€intact,€the€most€valuable€portion€of€the€10.7€acre€parcel€is€owned€byÏa€third€party.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court's€determination€that€specific€performanceÏwas€an€appropriate€remedy€under€the€facts€of€the€case€at€bar.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€chancellor's€ruling€in€all€respects.€€€Costs€on€appealÏare€taxed€to€the€Appellant.ÌÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.