ÿWPCÆ …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) n­8 å 0lí 0DY 0J 0Tç 0^; 0h™ 0r 0|s 0†ï 0u 1u 0dz BÞU *ûB)%DCN AM‘ùÞ†× D3]v~vÓ 0@á AO!Æp 0D6 D/z B©˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - [D\]D^_E`DabcUdÓ€¥Hœ$ Bookm3|xm«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ïÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌAugust€5,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€$ôÔThe€parties€dispute€whether€a€date€certain€for€the€auction€was€established€before€theÏappellant€told€the€appellee€he€had€a€prospective€buyer€for€the€property;€but€we€do€not€conceive€thisÏto€be€a€determinative€fact.€Ì'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€Ÿ†XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€$¼ÔÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€$XÔÌÌÌœÌÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌMARVIN€E.€ALEXANDERà àà àà à)Ìd/b/a€ALEXANDER€AUCTIONS€&à à)ÌREAL€ESTATE€SALES,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9710„CH„00590ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àGiles€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€9087ÌJOHN€HOPKINS€and€RHONDAà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àÌHOPKINS,€individually€and€d/b/aà àà à)ÌœRICHLAND›€CREEK€SOD€FARM,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€GILES€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€œPULASKI›,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€W.€œHARDIN›Ì102€West€œ7th›€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€692ÌColumbia,€Tennessee€38402„0692Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppelleeÌÌM.€ANDREW€HOOVERÌJOHN€P.€œDAMRON›Ì134€North€Second€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€288ÌœPulaski›,€Tennessee€38478ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€Ìà@ àAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÓÓò òÔ€$„Ôòòà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€$XÔÌÌà àà àA€licensed€auctioneer€and€real€estate€broker€filed€suit€against€theÏdefendant€landowners€for€breach€of€an€auction€contract,€because€the€defendantsÏsold€their€land€œprior€to€the€scheduled€auction€without›€his€œparticipation.›€€The€trialÏcourt€held€that€the€auctioneer€was€entitled€to€the€œanticipated€commission›€amount.€ÏWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€holding€that€the€property€œowners›€œare›€liable,€but€weÏmodify€the€amount€of€damages.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€An€Auction€that€Never€Happenedó óÌÌà à€à àAll€the€facts€that€are€material€to€this€case€are€undisputed× ƒ) ××  ×,€and€itsÏresolution€thus€turns€entirely€on€questions€of€law.€€On€August€1,€1995,€JohnÏHopkins€and€his€wife€Rhonda€Hopkins€signed€an€auction€contract€prepared€byÏMarvin€Alexander,€sole€proprietor€and€operator€of€Alexander€Auctions€and€RealÏEstate€Sales.€Mr.€Alexander€is€a€licensed€auctioneer€and€a€licensed€real€estateÏbroker.€€Both€licenses€are€required€to€auction€real€estate€in€Tennessee.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€62„19„102.ÌÌà àà àThe€contract€authorized€Mr.€Alexander€to€sell€at€absolute€auction€aÏ416.9€acre€tract€of€œland›€and€all€the€equipment€associated€with€the€HopkinsððÏoperation€of€a€sod€farm€on€that€land.€€Tracts€of€œ55,€63›€and€178€acres€are€alsoÏmentioned€in€the€contract€following€the€language€ð ðowner€may€include€.€.€.€.ðð€€TheÏconsideration€section€of€the€contract€states€that:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àð ð[œp]arties›€of€the€second€part€are€to€sell€the€aboveÏdescribed€property€at€public€auction€according€to€theÏterms€announced€at€date€of€sale€and€are€to€receive€asÏcompensation€for€selling€the€above€described€property€theÏsum€of€5%€of€the€proceeds€from€said€sale,€said€sum€ofÏmoney€or€percentage€agreed€upon€to€be€paid€parties€ofÏthe€second€part€upon€completion€of€said€sale.ððÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àà àOther€parts€of€the€contract€provide€that€the€advertising€for€the€saleÏwas€to€be€paid€50%€by€the€owners€and€50%€by€the€auction€company;€that€pre„auction€set€up€labor€was€to€be€paid€by€the€auction€company;€and€that€the€auctionÏdate€was€to€be€set€sometime€between€September€œ15th›€and€October€œ28th›,€1995.ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€contract€was€executed,€Mr.€Alexander€began€makingÏpreparations€for€the€auction,€including€inspecting€the€land,€making€plans€to€divideÏit€into€seven€tracts,€designing€brochures€and€print€advertisements€for€inclusion€inÏa€number€of€publications,€and€collecting€and€washing€the€equipment.ÌÌà àà àSometime€later,€Mr.€Hopkins€notified€Mr.€Alexander€that€he€beenÏtalking€privately€to€some€individuals€about€purchasing€the€land,€and€that€he€wouldÏsell€to€them€if€they€offered€him€the€price€he€wanted.€€He€advised€Mr.€Alexander€toÏstop€any€further€preparations€for€the€auction,€pending€the€results€of€hisÏnegotiations.€€Mr.€Alexander€was€unhappy€with€this€development,€and€Mr.ÏHopkins€rebuffed€several€attempts€by€him€to€learn€the€identity€of€the€purchasers€orÏthe€proposed€sales€price.ÌÌà àà àThe€auctioneer€armed€himself€with€a€mini„cassette€tape€recorderÏand€surreptitiously€taped€a€subsequent€conversation€with€Mr.€Hopkins.€€DuringÏthe€conversation,€Mr.€Alexander€stated€that€if€the€property€was€sold,€heÏconsidered€himself€entitled€to€his€full€commission.€€Mr.€Hopkins€argued€that€Mr.ÏAlexander€had€not€earned€the€full€commission,€and€offered€to€pay€him€2€1/2%€ofÏthe€closing€price.€€He€also€offered€to€let€Mr.€Alexander€sell€the€55€acre€tract€atÍauction,€as€well€as€the€remaining€equipment,€to€compensate€him€for€anyÏgrievance€he€might€have€about€the€loss€of€the€larger€tract,€but€Mr.€AlexanderÏangrily€refused.ÌÌà àà àAt€some€point€during€these€negotiations,€the€auction€contract€wasÏamended€by€crossing€out€the€word€ð ðmayðð€€before€mention€of€the€55€acre€tract,€andÏthe€amendment€was€initialed€by€both€parties.€€However€the€auction€was€neverÏheld.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Hopkins€obtained€a€sales€contract€for€the€416.9€acre€propertyÏand€the€63€acre€tract€in€late€September.€€The€contract€provided€for€a€sales€price€ofÏ$400,000€cash,€and€made€the€seller€responsible€for€any€real€estate€commissionÏowed€to€Alexander€Realty€and€Auction.€€The€sale€closed€on€October€19,€1995.€€Mr.ÏHopkins€subsequently€put€$15,800€of€the€proceeds€into€an€escrow€account€toÏtake€care€of€his€obligation€to€Mr.€Alexander.€€At€about€the€same€time,€Mr.€HopkinsÏsold€some€of€his€€equipment€for€approximately€$77,000.€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Alexander€filed€suit€for€his€commission.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏunder€general€principles€of€contract€law,€he€was€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€hisÏbargain,€and€granted€the€plaintiff€damages€of€$23,914.46€as€a€5%€commissionÏbased€upon€the€sales€price€of€$477,000€for€land€and€equipment.€€On€theÏauctioneerððs€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend,€the€court€found€that€Mr.€Alexander€wasÍalso€entitled€to€a€5%€commission€on€the€œunsold€55›€acre€œtract,›€as€well€as€on€theÏremaining€equipment.€€The€court€accordingly€increased€the€judgment€by€$15,300,Ïto€$39,214.46.€€This€appeal€followed.€€€€Ìœ›à@ àò òII.€€The€Governing€Law€ó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellants€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€deciding€this€caseÏunder€general€principles€of€contract€law€rather€than€under€the€specific€rules€thatÏhave€evolved€to€govern€real€estate€listing€contracts.€€They€also€note€that€theÏauction€contract,€which€was€drafted€by€the€appellee,€does€not€prohibit€the€ownerÏfrom€selling€the€property€himself.ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€law€applicable€to€real€estate€brokers€in€Tennessee,€aÏbroker€may€be€entitled€to€receive€a€commission€when€the€property€is€sold€by€theÏowner€himself,€but€only€when€the€listing€contract€contains€very€specific€languageÏto€that€effect.€òò€œTurnblazer›€v.€Smith,óó€379€S.W.2d€772,€214€Tenn.€277€(1964).€€EvenÏlanguage€granting€the€broker€an€exclusive€agency€is€not€sufficient€to€guaranteeÏhim€a€commission,€unless€he€can€show€that€he€was€the€procuring€cause€of€aÏcompleted€sale.€òò€Hood€v.€œGillespie›óó,€230€S.W.2d€997€190€Tenn.€548€(1950).€€€€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Alexander€admits€that€he€neither€procured€nor€introduced€theÏultimate€buyer€to€the€seller,€and€judging€both€from€his€testimony€and€that€of€Mr.ÏHopkins,€it€seems€highly€unlikely€that€any€of€his€promotional€efforts€contributed€inÍany€way€to€the€ultimate€sale.€€Thus,€if€we€accepted€the€appellantsðð€argument,€weÏwould€be€compelled€to€find€that€Mr.€Alexander€is€not€entitled€to€a€commission.€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellee€notes,€however,€that€there€are€important€differencesÏbetween€ordinary€real€estate€listings€and€an€absolute€auction€contract.€€WhileÏordinary€listings€are€subject€to€uncertainties€or€contingencies,€an€absolute€auctionÏcontract€creates€a€date€certain€for€sale,€there€is€little€doubt€that€the€property€will€beÏsold,€and€the€terms€(though€not€the€price)€are€preset.€ÌÌà àà àThere€is€apparently€no€Tennessee€authority€on€the€question€ofÏwhether€real€estate€auction€contracts€are€to€be€treated€as€ordinary€contracts,€or€inÏthe€same€way€as€real€estate€brokerage€listings.€€The€appellee€urges€us€to€adoptÏthe€logic€of€a€Wisconsin€case,€òòThorp€Sales€Corporation€v.€œGyuro›€Grading€Co.,óó€Inc.Ï331€œN.W.2d›€342€(œWisc›.€1983),€as€persuasive€authority€for€the€proposition€that€theyÏshould€be€interpreted€under€ordinary€contract€principles.ÌÌà àà àAs€the€appellant€points€out,€however,€the€òòThorpóó€case€only€involvedÏchattels,€and€not€real€property,€and€the€agreement€in€that€case€was€characterizedÏas€ð ðan€irrevocable€agreement€to€produce€specified€goods€at€a€scheduledÏauction,ðð€whereas€the€contract€in€the€present€case€contained€no€language€as€toÏirrevocability.ÌÌà àà àWe€also€note€that€there€is€another€line€of€authority€which€holds€thatÏð ðif€the€property€is€sold€prior€to€the€auction€by€someone€other€than€the€auctioneer,Ïthe€auctioneer€may€recover€his€expenses€and€reasonable€compensation€for€hisÏservices,€but€not€his€commission€under€the€contract.ðð€€7€œAm.›€œJur.›€œ2d›€òòAuctions€andÏAuctioneersóó€ðð€75.€€This€line€of€authority€is€exemplified€by€the€case€of€òòGreer€v.ÏArnoldóó,€633€S.W.2d€75€(Ky.€App.€1982).ÌÌà àà àAfter€weighing€the€two€competing€theories,€we€are€not€inclined€toÏadopt€a€doctrine€that€would€suddenly€subject€auctioneers€to€the€rules€that€haveÏslowly€evolved€in€Tennessee€to€govern€the€rights€of€property€owners€and€brokersÏin€regard€to€each€other.€€We€note€that€such€a€ruling€would€tend€to€undermine€theÏcertainty€that€distinguishes€auction€sales€from€œbrokered›€real€estate€sales,€andÏwhich€makes€auctions€the€preferred€means€of€disposing€of€property€in€manyÏinstances.€€We€also€believe€that€a€property€owner€who€wishes€to€keep€his€optionsÏopen€may€contract€to€limit€his€liability€in€case€of€sale€before€auction.ÌÌà àà àIn€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€liability,€we€would€like€toÏunderline€a€distinction€that€the€òòThorpóó€court€made€explicit.€€Since€an€auctionÏcontract€is€to€be€treated€under€ordinary€principles€of€contract€law,€the€auctioneer€isÏnot€entitled€to€his€commission€per€œse›;€he€is€entitled€to€the€damages€he€hasÏsuffered€from€the€defendantððs€breach€of€contract.€€As€the€court€said,€however,€€ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ð.€.€.€the€agreed„upon€commission€is€an€important€factor€inÏdetermining€what€would€have€been€necessary€to€give€theÍinjured€party€the€benefit€of€the€bargain€by€putting€it€in€asÏgood€a€position€as€it€would€have€been€in€had€the€contractÏbeen€performed.ðð€€ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ Ò331€œN.W.2d›€at€347.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€The€Calculation€of€Damagesó óÌÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€initial€order€of€the€trial€court€granted€the€auctioneer€ð ðdamagesÏrepresenting€five€(5%)€percent€of€the€proceeds€of€the€sale€of€that€portion€of€theÏreal€estate€and€equipment€sold€by€the€Defendant.ðð€€€However,€the€proof€showsÏthat€the€real€estate€sold€by€the€defendants€included€63€acres€that€they€were€notÏobligated€to€submit€to€the€auctioneer,€and€which€was€therefore€not€part€of€theÏbargain.ÌÌà àà àThe€award€should€thus€be€recalculated€to€exclude€any€amountÏattributable€to€the€sale€of€the€63€acres.€€The€appellant€is€also€entitled€to€have€hisÏdamages€reduced€by€the€amount€the€auctioneer€saved€by€virtue€of€not€conductingÏthe€auction.ÌÌà àà àSince€the€sales€contract€does€not€value€the€63€acre€tract€separatelyÏfrom€the€416.9€acre€tract,€we€adopt€the€appellantsðð€suggestion€that€we€place€aÏuniform€per/acre€valuation€on€the€property.€€For€the€total€$400,000€transaction,Ïthis€comes€to€$833.51€per€acre€for€479.9€acres.€€If€we€recalculate,€and€multiply€theÍprice€per€acre€by€the€416.9€acres,€we€reach€a€figure€of€$347,490.32.€€Five€percentÏof€that€figure€is€œ$17,374.53.›€€To€that€figure€we€must€add€5%€of€the€$77,000€salesÏprice€on€the€equipment,€or€$3,850.€€€After€adding€the€two€elements€of€theÏauctioneerððs€damage,€we€reach€a€total€of€œ$2l,224.53›.€€From€this€sum€we€mustÏsubtract€the€money€he€would€have€spent€if€he€had€conducted€the€auction€asÏplanned,€because€the€defendantsðð€breach€has€saved€him€this€amount.€€HeÏconcedes€his€savings€to€be€$3,400,€and€when€we€subtract,€we€reach€netÏdamages€of€$17,824.53.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€$15,300€added€to€the€judgment€on€the€motion€to€alter€orÏamend,€we€note€that€a€commission€of€that€amount€corresponds€to€a€$306,000Ïvalue€for€the€remaining€equipment€and€the€55€acre€tract€included€in€the€originalÏagreement.€€The€final€order€includes€a€finding€that€the€value€ð ðis€the€value€agreedÏupon€between€the€parties€prior€to€the€date€of€the€auction.ððÌÌà àà àWe€cannot€find€in€the€record€an€agreement€as€to€the€value€of€theÏproperty,€and€the€parties€do€not€cite€the€part€of€the€record€where€the€agreementÏcan€be€found.€€There€are€some€estimates€as€to€the€value€of€the€individualÏproperties,€but€we€think€the€estimates€are€too€unreliable€and€speculative€toÏsupport€a€judgment€for€a€commission€based€on€the€value.€€For€instance,€prior€toÏthe€sale€the€parties€estimated€that€the€416€acre€tract€was€worth€$520,000€and€theÏ63€acre€tract€was€worth€$94,000.€€The€appellants€actually€sold€these€two€parcelsÍœfor›€$400,000.€€We€do€not€think€the€amount€of€the€plaintiffððs€damages€for€the€sale€ofÏthe€55€acre€tract€and€the€balance€of€the€equipment€have€been€œproven›€to€aÏreasonable€certainty.€€òòSee€œBuice›€v.€œScruggs›€Equipment€Coóó.,€267€S.W.2d€119Ï(Tenn.€App.€œ1953).›ÌÌà àà àThe€amount€of€the€plaintiffððs€damages€is€modified€as€indicatedÏherein.€€In€all€other€respects€the€lower€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Remand€thisÏcause€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Giles€County€for€further€proceedings.€€Tax€theÏcosts€on€appeal€equally€to€the€parties.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€œJUDGE›œ›