WPCM u 0~v 0x 0kl 0k 0B 0~ 0Z 0+ 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0VH 0 0m 0 0 0x 04 0 0 0kUB %P 0zV 0 1 0  0= 0F 0P& 1v 0  0OD"E" 0}" 0x# 0# 0j$ 0e$ 0W$ 0W=% 0% 0j& 0& 0;' 0( 0( 0x) 0l* 0s+ 0-, 0@- 0. 0/ 0C0 00 0~1 0$2 02 03 04 14_5no5 046 BP64m6 06^7 0J|7B7 AQ9Y9 0D: 0@c: 0D: D/:w@; BV; D3s; 0J; 0T; 0^D< 0h< 0r = 0||= 0= 0~> 1u? 0d?U6?B)@DCF@ AM@U*@+A$+BVOEv~Fv#HV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dt!$(G.2a$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  BULSOARVINREINGOLDShoneyMarloweKelleySpence InsCappsWhittemoreT]hisFergusonShelbyBardenAcuffVinsantShoLodgePQRSTC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ F!  ("$    ($$   1  VV' dxd |}U~UUUDӀP PdGGGG'dxd2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  Y\]^_`ab ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dllll7Border 1ddPRmC << G<  9p`(Arial ! F!  #d#k  Q"  oo   YYY FILEDoXDecember16,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    F!#d#k  I$k         ThefiguresfortheperiodfromtheterminationofthePlaintiffsmanagementtothecommencementofthisactionare:     1994(12months)  1995(7months)TotalRevenue...............$1,127,811  $637,486RoomRevenue................ 1,108,703  628,068Profit......................89,028  55,629Plaintiffslost5percentmanagementfee   (basedonroomrevenue)..... 55,435  31,403 L F!#d#k  I$k         Itisinterestingtonotethat,whiletheessencethisappealisthatthedamagesareconclusive,thePlaintifftooktheoppositeviewinitsmotion.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva F! . k    7ZXXdd7\RA'\ `    , 5  l u` PRnpmA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONSHOLODGE,INC.@ ) HAMILTONCOUNTY@ ) 03A019605CV00180 PlaintiffAppellant @ )@ )@ ) v. @ ) HON.ROBERTM.SUMMITT,̀@ ) JUDGE @ )W.MIKEGARY,d/b/a@ )SHONEY'SINNOFCHATTANOOGA@ )   @ )  DefendantAppellee@ ) VACATEDANDREMANDEDEUGENEN.BULSO,JR.,OFNASHVILLEFORAPPELLANTARVINH.REINGOLDOFCHATTANOOGAFORAPPELLEE    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  ThisisanappealfromajudgmententeredbytheHamiltonCountyCircuitCourtinasuitarisingfromadisputeovera30yearhotelmanagementcontractwhichwasterminatedthreeyearsintoitsterm.  PlaintiffAppellantShoLodge,Inc.,filedsuitagainstDefendantAppelleeW.MikeGaryasowneroftheShoneysInnϜlocatedinChattanooga.AlthoughthePlaintiffofferedproofthroughexperttestimonythatthepresentvalueoftheremaining27yearsofthecontractwas$544,178.00,thejuryreturnedaverdictofonly$75,000.TheTrialCourtdeniedthePlaintiffsmotiontoalteroramendthejudgmentunderRule59.04oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureor,inthealternative,foranewtrialontheissueofdamages,fromwhichthePlaintiffappeals.TheTrialCourtawardedthePlaintiff$2,081.98indiscretionarycostsfromwhichtheDefendantappeals.   Thefactssurroundingthiscaseareasfollows.TheDefendantreacquiredtitletothepropertyandhotelinquestionin1989afterthepreviousbuyerdefaultedonaloan.Afterunsuccessfulattemptsatsellingthepropertywiththeoldhotelonit,theDefendantbegannegotiationswithLeonMoorein1990forconstructionofthehotelandforitssubsequentmanagement.AtthattimeMr.MoorewasPresidentofGulfCoastManagement,apredecessorofthePlaintiff.Mr.MooreandtheDefendantagreedthataportionoftheoldhotelshouldbetorndownandreconstructedandthattheremainderofthehotelshouldbegutted.TheDefendant,whowasretired,statedhisintentionwastoreconstructthehotelinordertoincreaseitsmarketabilityforresale.Mr.MooreandtheDefendantagreedthatthePlaintiffwouldmanagethehoteluponitscompletioninreturnforfivepercentoftheroomrevenues.However,nomanagementagreementwassignedatthattime.  Duringconstructionofthehotel,Mr.MooreinformedtheDefendantthatthefurniture,fixtures,andequipmentwerenotcoveredundertherealestatemortgageandthatadditionalfinancingthroughaseparateleasingagreementwouldbenecessary.BobbyMarlowe,ChiefFinancialOfficerofthePlaintiff,wasresponsibleforfindingaleasingcompanytoobtainthenecessaryfinancingfortheinteriorofthehotel.TheleasingcompanyselectedbyMr.Marlowerequiredamanagementagreementasaconditionfortheapprovalofthelease.  ThePlaintiffmanagedseveralotherShoneysInns,eachhavingsimilarmanagementagreements.Mr.MarloweinformedtheDefendantofthemanagementagreementrequirement.UponobtainingtheDefendantsapproval,Mr.MarloweselectedanexistingmanagementagreementfromoneofthePlaintiffsotherShoneysInnsagreements,changedtherelevantterms,andsenttheagreementtotheDefendant.Althoughthepartiesdidnotnegotiatethelengthoftheagreement,theagreementselectedbyMr.Marlowewasforatermof30years.Whilethepartieshadearlieragreedtobasecompensationonfivepercentofthemonthlyroomrental,theagreementselectedbyMr.Marlowebasedcompensationonfivepercentofthemonthlygrosscashreceipts.  TheDefendantplaceda"PostIt"noteonthefrontofthedocumentstating,"BobMarlowe,IdonotagreewithsomeofthetermsofthisbutLeonsaysIcanworkitoutwithhim."TheDefendantsignedboththemanagementagreementandthe"PostIt"noteandreturnedthemtoMr.Marlowe.Mr.MarlowereceivedthemanagementagreementaccompaniedbytheDefendantsattachednote.  TherenovatedhotelopenedinDecember1990underthePlaintiffsmanagement.ThePlaintiffcontinuedtomanagethehotelforthenextthreeyears.Theannualtotalrevenuesforthatperiodwere$874,788in1991,$957,538in1992,and$1,096,872in1993.Theannualroomrevenuesforthatperiodwere$860,479in1991,$938,786in1992,and$1,079,592in1993.Thehoteloperatedforlossesof$135,986and$61,207,respectively,inthefirsttwoyears.Thehotelgeneratedaprofitof$26,443inthethirdyearunderthePlaintiffsmanagement. q      Duringthisthreeyearperiod,thepartiesdidnotfollowthetermsofthewrittenagreementrequiringthePlaintifftobepaidapercentageofthetotalrevenue,butinsteadfollowedtheearlierverbalagreementrequiringthatthepaymentbebasedonapercentageoftheroomrevenues.RespondingtotheDefendantsconcernoverlossesinthefirsttwoyears,thepartiesdeviatedagainfromthewrittenagreementin1992byallowingtheDefendanttopaythePlaintiffatyearlyintervalsinsteadofmonthlyintervals.Additionally,thePlaintiffagreedtowaivethefeefortheyearifthehotelwasnotprofitable.OnDecember16,1993,theDefendantsentthePlaintiffaletterterminatingthePlaintiffsmanagementofthehotel.  ThePlaintifffileditscomplaintonSeptember6,1994.OnJanuary23,1995,thePlaintifffiledamotionforpartialsummaryjudgmentontheissueofthecontractualliabilityoftheDefendant.Inthatmotion,itcontendedthattheonlyissuewhichneededtobeaddressedintrialwastheamountofdamagestowhichitwasentitled.ThismotionwasdeniedbytheTrialCourtonMarch16,1995. r     AjurytrialwasheldonNovember30,1995.ThePlaintiffintroducedproofofdamagesattrialthroughtheexpertopinionofKelleyD.Slay.Mr.SlayprojectedthefuturerevenuesoftheDefendantshotelforthe27yearsremaininginthemanagementagreementandusedthisnumbertodeterminethePlaintiffsprojectedmanagementfeeforthisperiod.Discountingthisfiguretopresentvalue,Mr.SlaydeterminedthatthetotallosssustainedbythePlaintifffortheDefendantscancellationofthemanagementagreementwas$544,178.Mr.Slayscomputationswerebasedonthetermsofthemanagementagreementwiththeexceptionthatthefeewascalculatedbasednotontotalrevenuesasrequiredbythemanagementagreement,butonroomrevenuesasconsistentwiththepartiesearlierverbalagreement.Mr.SlaytestifiedthatthisalterationinthecalculationwasmadetoreflectthepartiesactualpracticeduringthethreeyearperiodpriortotheDefendantscancellationofthemanagementagreement.Mr.Slaytestifiedthatthe30yeartermofthecontractwasatypicalformanagementagreementsofthistype.Mr.Slayfurthertestifiedthatadownturnofthelocationofthehotelwouldaffectthepropertyandthathewasnotawareofanofficecomplexbeingforeclosedacrossthestreetfromthehotel.Mr.Slaywastheonlywitnesstotestifyastodamagesattrial.   Atthecloseofthepartiesproof,theJudgegavethefollowinginstructionconcerningcontracts:       Theclaimedagreementinthiscaseisinwritingifyoubelievetheplaintiff.Itispartlyinwritingwell,itsverbalifyoubelievethedefendant.....̀ IfyoufindthehandwrittennoteisapartofthedocumententitledManagementAgreement,wherethereisaconflictbetweenwrittenandtypewrittenprovisionsofadocument,thewrittenprovisionwillprevailbecauseahandwrittenprovisionisamoredeliberateandimmediateexpressionoftheintentionsoftheparties..... ...Soifyoufindthatthecontractwasgoodwithouttheaddition,thenyouwilltakeupdamages.Ifyoufindthattheadditionhadsomethingtodowiththisorthatyoufindthattherewereverbalcontracts,thenyoumusttakethatupnext.Andifyoudothat,thenyouwillactaccordinglywithyourverdict.         Counselforbothpartiesobjectedtothejuryinstructionconcerningtheissueofdamagesforverbalcontracts.Whilethejurywasdeliberating,counselforthepartiesagreedthatanadditionalinstructionshouldbereadintheeventthejuryhadaquestionpertainingtotheissueofcontracts.Afterthejuryreturned,requestingtobeagaininstructedabouttheeffectofwrittenchangestoacontract,theCourtconferredwithcounsel,andthenchargedasfollows:        Allright.Membersofthejury,inregardtothequestion,IwillrepeatachargethatIgaveyou.Ifyoufindthehandwrittennoteisapartofthedocumententitledmanagementagreementandwherethereisaconflictbetweenhandwrittenandtypewrittenprovisionsofadocument,thehandwrittenprovisionwillprevailbecauseahandwrittenprovisionisamoredeliberateandimmediateexpressionoftheintentionsoftheparties. Now,ImgoingtogiveyouthecontentionsofthepartieswhichIgaveyouearlierandaddsomethingtoit.TheplaintiffcontendsthattheSeptember20th,1990managementagreementsignedbythepartiesisavalidandenforceablecontract.Thedefendantcontendsthattheunderallthecircumstancesthesignednoteattachedtothefaceoftheagreementmadeitclearthathedidnotassenttoallofitstermsanditwas,therefore,notabindingcontract.  ThisiswhatImadding.Ifyoufindfromalltheevidencethattheplaintiffscontentionsarevalid,yourverdictwillbefortheplaintiff.Ifyoufindfromalltheevidencethatthedefendantscontentionsarevalid,yourverdictwillbeforthedefendant.         Attheconclusionofthenewcharge,ajuroraskedtheCourtifitwaspossibletohaveacopyoftheinstructions.TheCourtdeclined,statingthatwasnotallowedunderTennesseelaw.Asalreadynoted,thejuryreturnedaverdictintheamountof$75,000infavorofthePlaintiff.   ThePlaintifffiledamotionfordiscretionarycostandtoalteroramendthejudgment,or,inthealternative,foranewtrialsolelyontheissueofdamages.TheTrialCourtdeniedthePlaintiffsrequeststoalteroramendthejudgmentandforanewtrial,butawardedthePlaintiff$2081.98indiscretionarycosts.  Thefollowingissues,whichwerestate,arepresentedtothisCourtforappealbythePlaintiff:        I.WhethertheTrialCourterredindenyingthePlaintiffsmotiontoalteroramendthejurysaward.  II.WhethertheTrialCourterredindenyingthePlaintiffsmotioninthealternativeforanewtriallimitedtotheissueofdamages.̛         Additionally,theDefendantsubmitsthefollowingissuesonappeal,whichwealsorestate:        I.Whetherthetrialcourtsortheappellatecourtshavetherighttoalteradamageawardreturnedbyajurythatconflictswithanexpertsprojectionsastofuturedamages.  II.Ifthejuryverdictcannotbeupheldandanewtrialismandated,whetherthecaseshouldberemandedonallissues.  III.WhethertheTrialCourtabuseditsdiscretioninawardingdiscretionarycostsforitemsthatwerenotnecessaryandnotusedintrial.̛̛̛̛         Forthereasonshereinaftersetout,wevacatethejudgmententeredandremandthecaseforanewtrial.  ThePlaintiffarguesthatsincethejuryfoundtheDefendantliable,itwasrequiredtoawardthedamagesprojectedbythePlaintiffsexpert.ThePlaintiff,relyingonSpencev.AllstateIns.Co.,883S.W.2d586(Tenn.1994),arguesthattheTrialCourtshouldhavemodifiedthejurysverdictbecausethedamagesawardedconflictwiththeundisputedanduncontradictedevidence.Theevidenceconcerningdamagesisundisputed,thePlaintiffcontends,becausethejurymaynotignoretheunimpeached,uncontradictedtestimonyofanexpertconcerningprojectedfuturedamagessincethoseprojectionsandtheapplicationofdiscountratesarebeyondthejurysreliableknowledge.Supportingthisproposition,thePlaintiffreliesonHudsonv.Capps,651S.W.2d243(Tenn.App.1983);ReserveLifeIns.Co.v.Whittemore,59Tenn.App.495,442S.W.2d266(1969);andHillv.King,anunreportedopinionofthisCourtfiledinNashvilleonOctober8,1985.  ThePlaintiffsrelianceonSpenceismisplaced.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtinSpenceaffirmedthetrialcourtsdecisiontoalterthejurysverdict.Thus,theCourtinSpenceheldthatatrialcourthastheauthorityunderRule59.04oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureto"modifyajudgmentwhenthedamagesawardedbythejuryconflictwiththeundisputedfactsconcerningdamages."However,Spencedoesnotholdthatthetrialcourtisrequiredtoor"should"modifyanawardasthePlaintiffcontends,orthattheappellatecourtscanmodifythejudgmentonappeal.  Furthermore,thisCourtisnotwillingtoacceptthePlaintiffsargumentthatexperttestimonyconcerningprojecteddamagesisconclusiveuponajury.TheSupremeCourtofTennesseehasstated:       [T]hisopiniontestimonyalthoughnotcontradictedbyanopposingcontraryopinionisnotconclusive.Expertopinions,atleastwhendealingwithhighlycomplicatedandspecificmatters,arenotordinarilyconclusiveinthesensethattheymustbeacceptedastrueonthesubjectoftheirtestimony,butarepurelyadvisoryincharacterandthetrieroffactsmayplacewhateverweightitchoosesuponsuchtestimonyandmayrejectit,ifitfindsthatitisinconsistentwiththefactsinthecaseorotherwiseunreasonable.Eveninthoseinstancesinwhichnoopposingexpertevidenceisoffered,thetrieroffactsisstillboundtodecidetheissueuponitsownfairjudgment,assistedbytheexperttestimony.ActOLaneGasServiceCo.v.Hall,35Tenn.App.500,249S.W.2d398(1951).Inourview,thisisespeciallytruewhentheopinion,asinthiscase,amountstonomorethanpredictionandspeculation.       Gibsonv.Ferguson,562S.W.2d188,190(Tenn.1976).ThegeneralruleinthisStateisthatexperttestimonyisnotconclusiveunlessitisofsuchatechnicalorscientificnaturethatlaymenmaybesupposedtohaveinsufficientknowledgeuponwhichtobaseacorrectjudgment.Englandv.BurnsStoneCo.Inc.,874S.W.2d32(Tenn.App.1993).Theexperttestimonyinthiscasedoesnotfallintothiscategory.Testimonyconcerningthepredictionoffuturedamagesisjustthat,aprediction.Predictionsareinherentlyspeculativeandarenotbindingonthetrieroffact.Therefore,weholdthattheTrialCourtdidnoterrindenyingthePlaintiffsmotiontoalteroramendthejurysverdict.  Therecordrevealsthatthejurywasconfusedabouttheinstructionconcerningcontracts.Thisisindicatedbythejurysrequestforaclarificationoftheoriginalinstructionregardingcontractsandtheirsubsequentrequestforawrittencopyuponhearingtheamendedinstruction.Additionally,theTrialCourtsamendedinstructionwasnotconsistentwithitspreviousinstruction.Theoriginalinstructionallowedthejurytofindthatthepartieshadagreedtoawrittencontract,awrittencontractmodifiedbythehandwrittennoteattachedbytheDefendant,oraverbalcontract.Whiletheinstructionclearlyrequiredthejurytodecidetheissueofdamagesifitfoundthatthepartieshadenteredintothewrittencontract,theinstructionswereunclearinregardtotheothertwooptions.However,theamendedinstructionrequiredtheissueofdamagestobeaddressedonlyifthejuryfoundthatawrittencontractexisted.IftheTrialCourtintendedthesecondinstructiontoreplacethefirst,theissueofdamagesconcerningamodifiedwrittencontractwaseliminatedalongwithanydamagesforaverbalcontract.  Inlightoftheforegoingandthefurtherfactthatthejurywasconfusedaboutthetwoinconsistentjuryinstructions,wedeemitappropriatetoremandthecaseforanewtrialonalltheissues.First,appellatecourtscannotconsidertheissueofwhetherthejuryverdictwascontrarytotheweightandpreponderanceoftheevidence.Rule13(d),TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.ShelbyCountyv.Barden,527S.W.2d124(Tenn.1975);Englandv.BurnsStoneCo.Inc.,supra.Second,ithaslongbeentheruleinthisStatethatappellatecourtsaretoremandacaseforanewtrialonallissueswhere,"fromtheinadequacyofdamagesawarded,inviewoftheevidence,ortheconflictofevidenceuponthequestionofliability,orfromothercircumstances,plaininferencemaybedrawnthattheverdictistheresultofacompromise."W.T.GrantCo.v.Tanner,170Tenn.451,95S.W.2d926,(1936).Adecisiontoremandonallissuesisfurthersupportedwheretheinadequacyoftheverdictallegedlyresultedfromanerroneousjurychargebythetrialcourtorindicatesthatthejuryhaddoubtsastoadefendantsliability.Acuffv.Vinsant,59Tenn.App.727,443S.W.2d669(1969).Allofthesefactorsarepresentinthiscase.  Fortheforegoingreasons,thejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisvacated,andthecauseremandedforanewtrialonallissues.CostsofappealareadjudgedonehalfagainsttheDefendant,andonehalfagainstthePlaintiffanditssurety.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________DonT.McMurray,J.________________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.