ÿWPC· f_¥r@†=³KíÈy]ïk^^U°™ Æ/‘‡Rý¿…r‹bLyg¦ˆ[O/Ï­±Ê߬ÿ޲™— N!%™3~û´ß®>~©«“ÞVª›r\9È‘¾àÛ$QiÔ{§¸Uo ¬\ Iá9%sm-ã”Ôë‚Tf¥ÿëèÃX«WGáw§ù34l ËkoôuF·™tÔèŽÔ9ITʶsÅ«ÒÅOÑ#cÐ~gáéS¯Ïô1æažÔ'¤ûgÕ­ôÚvÇÅ¡mÉ,RϘ%Ö¹iŸ­„"XÈxK]6%ißuÁ¥R‚š]{3ÖŽç¿ÄßÚBÉ$¤J>t÷’ÿ»¯ò߯?ä4 "M}F¢¾ôŸ 1ÓŠˆ³Ymà/KÙÞ…š¼—RU.â]ÎF`FÜqþT›°0]BØ<_G.rèOÿéãqŠa ïÙn­bì»H lCËÉ–W_ýaÇɶýŠRh÷@ÎS§°øy]Ž”E£‘ ÿ¬3øËùŽ;û®”ûÄ!~zW8À äœ €7Jzýhp‚ Œ¶†>¸‹Ê5”}ùƒžŽÕþTφuËÎðJa0±îZy\ã}o<#þ”!ùEìnäÈ–÷W:62yoÇ*# LU NW %¥ 0(«w@Ó4'6>U N> 0lŒ 0DøV<l’ U:þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ B8 AQU Ʀ 0Dl 0D° 0Dô ô D/88 Bg D3„˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLdÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ × [Ø Ù DÚ Û UÜ DÝ UÞ Dß Ó€é U©yË&3|xé  öÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X˜dXXXÔÔ€NXX˜dÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X˜dXNÔÐ  ÐÌJune€18,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó LÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€10€(Rules€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€of€Tennessee).„„(b)€ò òMemorandum€Opinion.ó ó€Ð ° ÐThe€Court,€with€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverse€orÏmodify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formal€opinion€would€haveÏno€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€by€memorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designatedÏð ðMEMORANDUM€OPINION,ðð€shall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€anyÏreason€in€a€subsequent€unrelated€case. bÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€the€parties€brought€before€the€trial€court€anyÐ ° Ðissues€regarding€application€of€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code€or€whether€this€contract€is€one€forÏgoods€or€services.€€It€appears€that€the€trial€court€applied€common€law€principles.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d!"#$&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'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñß ñ›ñß ñÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑò òÔ‡ XŽ,XXXÔÑ7€,ùXXdðdÈ7ÑÓ  ÓÑ  Ññß ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` 8ttxP°ð  rß›ñß ñà@ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ ° Ðò òà@úú$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˆØ Мñé ñÌñé ñ›œñé ñÌñé ñ›œñé ñÌñé ñ›œñé ñÌñé ñ›ÌóóÌMIKE€WILLIAMS,€INDIVIDUALLY,à À à)à  àó óFrom€the€Circuit€CourtÐ ü L  Ðò òand€d/b/a€MIKEððS€FOOD€œVALUE›à À à)à  àó ófor€Sumner€County,€Tennesseeò ò€Ð ì <  Ðand€WESTMORELAND€œBI„RITE,›à À à)à  àó óThe€Honorable€Thomas€Goodall,€Judgeò òÐ Ü,  Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Ì  Ðà  àPlaintiff/Appellee,ò òà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óSumner€Circuit€No.€15697„C€Ð ¸  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àAppeal€No.€01A01„9710„CV„00560Ô#†X,ùXX XŽ,}#ÔÔ‡ XŽ,XXX,ùÔÐ ¨ø  Ðò òv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Ð ”ä  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€INÔ#†X,ùXX XŽ,„#ÔÔ‡ XŽ,XXX,ùÔÐ €Ð Ð7„11€INSTALLATION€&€SERVICE,€€à À à)à  àPART,€AND€REMANDEDÐ l¼ ÐINC.€and€BUD€CARTER,à  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ X¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óJohn€R.€Phillips,€Jr.€€Ô#†X,ùXX XŽ,½#ÔÔ‡ XŽ,XXX,ùÔò òÐ D” Ðà  àÔ#†X,ùXX XŽ,; #ÔÔ‡ XŽ,XXX,ùÔó óDefendants/Appellants.ò òà h àà À à)à  àó óGallatin,€TennesseeÐ 4„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppellantsÔ#†X,ùXX XŽ,¡ #ÔÔ‡ XŽ,XXX,ùÔò òÐ $t Ѐà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óCynthia€Hall€TempletonÔ#†X,ùXX XŽ,Æ #ÔÔ‡ XŽ,XXX,ùÔò òÐ üL Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óGallatin,€TennesseeÔ#†X,ùXX XŽ,í #ÔÔ‡ XŽ,XXX,ùÔò òÐ ì< Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à@ìì*ìàó óòòˆà  àóóAttorney€for€the€Plaintiff/AppelleeÔ#†X,ùXX XŽ,² #ÔÔ‡ XŽ,XXX,ùÔòòÐ Ü, Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏÌóóÓ  Óò òRULE€10€MEMORANDUM€OPINIONÐ ¤ô ÐÌÓ  Óó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð | Ì ÐóóÌÓÓà  àThis€matter€appears€appropriate€for€consideration€pursuant€to€Rule€10(b)€of€the€Rules€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€of€Tennessee.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X,ùXX XŽ,  #ÔÐ ,$|" ÐÑ7€,ùXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà  àThis€is€a€breach€of€contract€case€involving€the€sale€and€installation€of€refrigerationÐ &T!$ Ðequipment.€€The€owner€of€the€property€alleged€that€the€contractor€breached€the€agreement€to€installÏthe€equipment.ò ò€€ó óThe€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€in€favor€of€the€property€owner.€€The€contractorÐ Ä)%( Ðappeals.€€We€œaffirm›€in€œpart,€reverse€in€part,›€and€remand€to€œthe€trial›€court€as€set€forth€below.Ìà  àThe€facts€are€essentially€undisputed.€€On€March€23,€1995,€Marshall€Carter€(ð ðCarterðð),€theÏowner€of€7„11€Installation€&€Service,€Inc.€(ð ð7„11€œInstallationðð),€submitted›€a€proposal€to€MikeÏWilliams€(ð ðWilliamsðð),€owner€of€Mikeððs€Food€œValue›€and€Westmoreland€Bi„Rite,€for€the€sale€œandÏinstallation€of›€refrigeration€equipment.€€The€proposal€quoted€$66,200€for€the€refrigeration€equipmentÐ $3t.2 Ðand€€$40,000€for€materials€and€labor€for€the€installation€of€the€œequipment.€€Williams›€subcontractedÏthe€refrigeration€work€to€7„11€Installation€as€part€of€a€construction€project€which€was€designed€toÏadd€œ5,000›€square€feet€to€the€grocery€store.Ìâ ââ âà  àNeither€party€signed€the€proposal,€although€Williams€concedes€that€he€orally€agreed€to€it.€ÏThe€proposal€did€not€state€the€date€by€which€the€installation€of€the€equipment€was€to€be€completed.€ÏœHowever,›€the€proposal€stated:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓAll€material€is€guaranteed€to€be€as€specified.€€All€work€to€be€completed€in€aÏworkmanlike€manner€according€to€standard€practices.€€Any€alteration€or€deviationÏfrom€specifications€below€involving€extra€costs€will€be€executed€only€œupon›€writtenÏorders,€and€will€become€an€extra€charge€over€and€above€the€estimate.€€òòAll€agreementsÐ à0  Ðcontingent€upon€strikes,€accidents€or€delays€beyond€our€œcontrol€óó.€.€.€.›€œ(emphasisÐ Ð  Ðadded).›ÌÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓà  àOn€March€28,€1995,€Carter€delivered€the€first€load€of€equipment€to€the€grocery€store,€withÏthe€final€delivery€of€the€equipment€on€May€4,€1995.€€Williams€paid€for€half€of€the€equipment€whenÏ7„11€Installation€made€the€initial€delivery€and€paid€the€remaining€amount€owed€upon€final€deliveryÏon€May€œ4.€€The›€equipment€was€stored€in€a€rented€trailer€on€œsite.›Ìà  àHowever,€prior€to€the€excavation€work€in€preparation€for€construction,€Williams€encounteredÏa€boundary€line€dispute€with€the€adjacent€property€owner€involving€a€six€foot€strip€of€propertyÏbehind€the€œstore.€€On›€May€4th,€the€date€of€the€final€delivery,€Williams€told€Carter€about€the€delay.€ÏCarter€observed€that€no€work€had€commenced€on€the€property,€and€Carter€had€not€been€paid€for€anyÏlabor€œcosts.€€The›€parties€did€not€discuss€whether€the€delay€would€affect€Carterððs€œperformance.€€The›Ïboundary€line€dispute€required€four€to€six€weeks€to€œresolve.›Ìà  àIn€addition,€in€May,€upon€final€delivery€of€the€equipment,€Williams€requested€7„11ÏInstallation€to€install€a€walk„in€freezer€as€well€as€move€old€equipment€in€preparation€for€constructionÏto€begin€on€the€new€addition.€œ7„11€Installation€installed€the€walk„in€freezer€that€month.€€The›€walk„inÏfreezer€was€included€in€the€equipment€list€as€part€of€the€œproposal.›€€Ìà  àœIn€approximately€the€third€week€of€June€1995,›€another€subcontractor€began€the€excavationÏof€dirt€and€rock€œin€preparation€for›€œconstruction.›€€This€was€completed€ten€days€œlater.€€Williams›€thenÏscheduled€a€meeting€for€July€10,€1995,€with€Carter,€€the€contractor,€and€the€plumbing€and€electricalÏœworkers.€€Carter›€did€not€attend€the€œmeeting.€€On›€July€œ11,›€Williams€called€7„11€œInstallation.€€On€JulyÏ14,€Williams›€was€told€œthat€7„11›€Installation€had€sold€its€assets€to€Maynard€œFixturecraft,€and€that›€7„11Ïâ âInstallation€would€not€be€conducting€any€further€œbusiness.€€The›€record€reflects€that€Carter€sold€7„11Ð @837 ÐInstallation€to€Maynard€Fixturecraft€by€agreement€dated€July€13,€1995.€€The€agreement€included€aÏnon„compete€clause€regarding€Carter.Ìâ âà  àSubsequently,€Williams€executed€a€contract€with€Maynard€Fixturecraft€to€complete€theÏinstallation€of€the€refrigeration€œequipment.€€Williams›€paid€Maynard€Fixturecraft€$53,390€for€labor,Ï$13,390€more€than€the€$40,000€in€labor€costs€to€which€7„11€Installation€had€œagreed.€€Maynard›ÏFixturecraft€performed€some€of€the€work€in€August€1995,€and€completed€the€project€in€OctoberÏœ1995.›Ìà  àWilliams€then€filed€this€lawsuit€against€7„11€Installation€and€Bud€Carter,€personally,€toÏrecover€the€difference€between€œthe€amount€paid€to€Maynard€Fixturecraft€and›€œ7„11€Installationððs›Ïcontract€price.€€7„11€Installation€and€Carter€filed€a€counter„complaint€denying€liability€on€the€breachÏœof€contract›€claim,€€and€Carter€denied€personal€liability€on€the€claim.€€In€addition,€7„11€InstallationÏand€Carter€sought€damages€for€equipment€storage€expenses€and€for€the€installation€of€the€walk„inÏfreezer.Ìà  àAt€trial,€Carter€testified€that€he€believed€that€installation€would€be€completed€within€four€toÏfive€weeks€after€the€final€delivery€date.€€He€testified€that€it€is€customary€in€a€refrigeration€contractÏto€perform€within€approximately€sixty€days€of€agreeing€on€the€proposal.€€Williams€testified€that€heÏexpected€Carter€to€install€the€equipment€within€thirty€to€sixty€days€after€the€parties€orally€agreed€toÏthe€proposal€on€March€28,€1995.Ìà  àThe€record€does€not€indicate€why€Maynardððs€labor€costs€were€$13,390€more€than€7„11ÏInstallationððs€quoted€labor€costs.€€Williams€testified€that€he€received€a€bid€from€Maynard€at€the€time€Ïhe€received€7„11€Installationððs€bid.€€Williams€testified€that€Maynardððs€bid€at€that€time€was€ð ðquite€aÏbit€higher,ðð€but€could€not€recall€the€amount€of€Maynardððs€original€bid.€€7„11€Installation€argues€thatÏMaynardððs€œlabor€costs€were›€higher€because€the€work€Maynard€finally€did€for€Williams€was€done€onÏan€emergency€basis,€œsince›€Williamsðð€store€was€closed€while€the€work€was€being€done€and€that€œtheÏstore€closure›€cost€him€considerably.€€Williams€acknowledges€some€time€impetus;€he€took€MaynardððsÏbid€after€7„11€Installation€was€out€of€business€because€Maynard€was€in€a€position€to€begin€workÏimmediately.€€However,€there€is€no€proof€that€the€amount€of€Maynardððs€bid€was€affected€by€thisÏfactor.€€Nevertheless,€Carter€testified€that€7„11€Installationððs€labor€œcosts›€would€have€increased€if€heÏhad€been€required€to€do€the€work€on€an€emergency€basis,€to€pay€for€unanticipated€œovertime.›Ð 09€48 Ðà  àThe€trial€court€issued€an€oral€ruling€from€the€bench€in€favor€of€Williams€in€the€amount€ofÏ$7,323.€€The€trial€court€held€that€both€7„11€Installation€and€Carter€were€liable€on€the€breach€ofÏcontract€claim€in€the€amount€of€$13,390,€the€difference€between€the€œamount€paid€to€MaynardÏFixturecraft›€and€œ7„11€Installationððs›€contract€price.€€The€trial€court€further€held€that€Williams€owedÏCarter€œand€7„11€Installation€$6,067.09;›€$5,370€for€the€labor€and€materials€for€installation€of€the€walk„¼in€freezer€and€$697.09€for€the€site€storage€of€the€refrigeration€equipment.€€The€trial€court€set€off€theÏjudgments€and€held€in€favor€of€Williams€in€the€amount€of€$7,323.€€7„11€Installation€and€CarterÏappeal€this€decision.Ìà  à7„11€Installation€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€awarding€damages€to€Williams€becauseÏthe€boundary€line€dispute€involving€the€property€unreasonably€delayed€their€performance€under€theÏagreement,€and,€in€the€interim,€7„11€Installation€had€gone€out€of€business.€€In€addition,€7„11ÏInstallation€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€accepting€Williamsðð€measurement€of€damages.€ÏDefendant€Carter€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€Carter,€in€his€capacity€as€corporateÏofficer,€personally€liable€for€the€œjudgment.›€Ìà  àÔ‡ Xž2XXX¼©ÔSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€ò òòòde€novoóóó óÐ ð@ Ðupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court,€unlessÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).Ô#†X¼©XX Xž2ï.#ÔÐ  "ð  Ðà  à7„11€Installation€contends€that€the€delay€resulting€from€the€boundary€line€dispute€preventedÏtheir€performance€within€the€period€of€time€œexpected›€for€performance;€therefore,€they€should€not€beÏheld€liable€for€damages€resulting€from€the€delay.€€Williams€argues€that€7„11€Installation€knew€of€theÏdelay€and€failed€to€communicate€its€inability€or€potential€inability€to€perform.Ìà  àWhile€the€proposal€includes€a€list€of€prices€for€the€equipment€and€a€price€for€labor€andÏmaterials,€it€is€undisputed€that€it€does€not€address€the€time€for€œperformance.׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€œWe€have€longÐ Ø-(), Ðrecognized€that€contract€terms€may€be€implied€in€appropriate€cases.€€ò òòòSee€Hamblen€€County€v.€CityÐ ¸/+. Ðof€Morristownó óóó,€656€S.W.2d€331,€334€(Tenn.€1983);€òòò òTurner€v.€Yowóóó ó,€657€S.W.2d€94,€97€(Tenn.€App.Ð ˜1è,0 Ðâ â1983).€€This›€situation€was€addressed€by€this€Court€in€ò òòòMinor€v.€œMinoró óóó:›Ð x3È.2 ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓWhere€no€provision€is€made€in€the€contract€for€performance,€a€reasonable€time€isÏâ âimplied.€€Completion€of€a€contract€within€a€reasonable€time€is€sufficient€if€no€timeÏis€stipulated.€€Where€the€parties€have€not€clearly€expressed€the€duration€of€theÏcontract,€or€where€the€duration€of€the€contract€is€indefinite,€the€courts€will€imply€thatÏthey€intended€performance€to€continue€for€a€reasonable€time.€ÌÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓòòò òMinor€v.€Minoró óóó,€€863€S.W.2d€51,€54€(Tenn.€App.€œ1993);›€œò òòòsee›€Birge€v.€Boeing€Co.óóó ó,€œNo.€03A01„9609„Ð P   ÐCH„00295,€1997›€WL€68325€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€19,€1997);ò òòò€Shaw€Indus.€v.€Grizzelló óóó,€œNo.€01A01„9408„Ð 0 € ÐCV„00388,€1995›€WL€70570€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.€22,€œ1995).€€The›€factors€utilized€in€determining€aÏreasonable€time€for€performance€are:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓWhat€constitutes€a€reasonable€time€within€which€an€act€is€to€be€performed€where€aÏcontract€is€silent€upon€the€subject€depends€on€the€subject€matter€of€the€contract,€theÏsituation€of€the€parties,€their€intention€in€what€they€contemplated€at€the€time€theÏcontract€was€made,€and€the€circumstances€attending€the€performance.ÌÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓò òòòMinoró óóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€œ54€(quoting€17A€Am.€Jur.€Contracts€ðð€480€(1991)).›Ð €Ð Ðà  àIn€this€case,€both€parties€testified€that€they€contemplated€an€approximate€thirty€to€sixty€dayÏperiod€œfor€performance›€of€the€œcontract.€€In›€addition,€the€actions€of€both€parties€reflected€anÏunderstanding€that€excavation€and€construction€were€to€begin€immediately,€œwhich€would€haveÏpermitted›€the€refrigeration€installation€to€be€performed€within€this€period.€€On€March€28,€1995,€fourÏdays€after€the€parties€agreed€to€the€proposal,€7„11€Installation€delivered€œa€portion€of€the›€equipmentÏto€the€construction€site,€€and€Williams€paid€for€the€œequipment€which€was€delivered.›€€7„11€InstallationÏagreed€to€pay€for€storage€of€the€equipment€until€the€time€for€installation.€€These€actions€areÏconsistent€with€an€understanding€that€the€contract€would€be€fully€performed€by€both€parties€withinÏapproximately€sixty€days.€€Ìà  àInstead,€Williams€encountered€a€boundary€line€dispute€with€an€adjacent€property€owner.€€TheÏconstruction€could€not€begin€until€this€was€resolved.€€The€excavation€work€finally€began€€the€middleÏof€June€and€installation€of€the€refrigeration€equipment€was€not€completed€until€October€1995,€sevenÏmonths€after€the€7„11€Installationððs€proposal€was€accepted€by€Williams.€Ìà  àIn€this€case,€the€burden€was€on€Williams€to€prove€that€the€increase€in€labor€costs€were€causedÏby€7„11€Installation€going€out€of€business.€€It€is€undisputed€that€7„11€Installation€could€haveÏperformed€the€contract€in€the€absence€of€the€delay€caused€by€the€boundary€line€dispute.€€It€is€also€fairÏto€say€that€Williams€is€more€responsible€for€this€delay,€and€that€no€fault€for€the€delay€can€beÏattributed€to€7„11€Installation.€€The€proof€at€trial€was€mixed€as€to€whether€the€delay€caused€by€theÏboundary€line€dispute€was€unreasonable.€€The€general€contractor,€Steve€Coates,€testified€that€a€four„Ð  :p59 Ðto„six€week€delay€was€not€unreasonable;€Carter€testified€that€for€a€small€subcontractor€like€7„11ÏInstallation,€this€delay€was€unreasonable.€€The€record€also€indicates€some€question€as€to€whether€theÏdelay€attributable€to€the€boundary€line€dispute€was€in€fact€more€than€four„to„six€weeks.€€The€trialÏcourt€did€not€make€a€finding€of€fact€as€to€the€amount€of€the€delay€attributable€to€the€boundary€lineÏdispute€or€whether€the€delay€was€unreasonable€under€the€circumstances.Ìà  àHowever,€even€if€it€is€assumed€that€the€delay€caused€by€the€boundary€line€dispute€was€notÏunreasonable,€Williams€can€only€recover€for€the€amount€of€damages€caused€by€7„11€InstallationÏgoing€out€of€business,€making€it€necessary€for€him€to€have€Maynard€install€the€equipment.€€WhileÏWilliams€is€not€required€to€prove€this€amount€with€precision,€he€must€prove€it€œð ðwith›€œa€reasonable›Ïœdegree€of€certainty.ðð€€ò òòòMoore€Constr.€Co.€v.€Clarksville€Depððt.€of€Elec.ó óóó,€707€S.W.2d€1,€15€(Tenn.Ð à ÐApp.€€1985)€òòaffððdóó,€707€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1986)€(citing€ò òòòBuice€v.€Scruggs€Equip.€Co.óóó ó,€267€S.W.2d€119,Ð pÀ Ð125„26€(Tenn.€App.€1953);€ò òòòsee€also€ñÕ ññÎ ñóóñÎ ññÕ ññÔ ññÏ ñó óñÏ ññÔ ññÖ ñAirline€Constr.ñÖ ññÚ ñ,ñÚ ññÖ ñ€Inc.€v.€BarróóñÖ ññ× ñó óñ× ññØ ñ,€807€S.W.2d€247,€274€(Tenn.€App.Ð P  Ð1990).ñØ ññÖ ññÕ ñóóñÕ ññÖ ññ× ññÔ ñó óñÔ ññ× ñ€€ñÙ ñ€ñÙ ñThis›€could€have€been€accomplished€by€putting€into€evidence€the€amount€of€MaynardððsÏoriginal€bid,€given€at€the€time€7„11€Installation€submitted€its€proposal,€but€this€amount€is€not€in€theÏrecord.€€Even€if€all€credibility€determinations€on€disputed€facts€were€made€in€Williamsðð€favor,€weÏcannot€ascertain€from€this€record€the€amount€of€damages€that€are€attributable€to€7„11€InstallationÏgoing€out€of€business,€as€opposed€to€the€amount€of€increased€costs€attributable€to€the€œdelay€from€theÏboundary›€line€dispute.€€Damages€cannot€be€awarded€œwhen€damages€are€ð ðuncertain,€contingent,€orÏspeculative.ðð€€òòò òMoore€Constr.€Co.óóó ó,€707€S.W.2d€at€15.€€Consequently,›€we€must€conclude€that€WilliamsÐ p&À!$ Ðfailed€to€prove€the€amount€of€damages€with€requisite€€specificity.€€Accordingly,€the€award€ofÏdamages€to€Williams€must€be€reversed.Ìà  àThe€award€of€damages€to€Williams€in€the€amount€$13,390€is€reversed.€€The€issue€on€appealÏas€to€Carterððs€personal€liability€is€pretermitted€by€this€ruling.€€The€award€of€damages€œto€Carter€andÏ7„11€Installation›€in€the€amount€of€$6,067.09€was€not€appealed.€€Therefore,€œCarter€and€7„11ÏInstallation€are›€awarded€damages€in€the€amount€of€$6,067.09.Ìà  àœñÛ ñÌÌâ âÐ P7 26 Ðà  àñÛ ñThe›€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€in€part€and€affirmed€in€part,€as€set€forth€above.€€TheÏâ âcause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€any€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€CostsÏare€assessed€against€the€Appellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€€ÌœÌñÜ ñÌñÜ ññÞ ññÝ ñÌñÝ ññÞ ñÌ›ÓÓÔ‡ Xž2XXX¼©Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð `  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð üL  Ðó óà  àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˜è ÐóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.Ð „Ô ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ H˜ ÐALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó óÐ 4„ ÐÔ#†X¼©XX Xž2dM#Ô