WPC) ZWt>(7HZ(Ye#N!X; ;^D@fu;8KSBZ,VAЦ ![CSMoq,]/c9$~E(Z{`=ǴYy:pqej1b *w  ȓ$(cʴ'1d\կ;TsM˘:jlybuB?שtm'AyVK7Z3ڡl/\M;_LaNTXP*KU]ўXC$Ϟ#ߋaÏM@M7\DOݣLIyP5{ #O~mZccDvo[PGz9ʬRVjTRAr.5b ٬XW$-Zw4idnxH0Y)*_R yuڱEhdsV$jwgivY$b#\ % UN# 0q UN ^ G wS zW  4   0D   s9N mEb 0$$$$ B 0, D5 D- 0K22 AS} 0 0D: A~HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular{{)L  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptL-(H R$      1     _ԀThejudgmentagainstMusaappearstobeunenforceable,ashehassincedisappeared.3|x(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U- -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  D d(|3"$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3"$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8sXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATMEMPHIS# #Ԉ ,   October10,2000Session X XsX #XXs#ALLIEDBUSINESSBROKERS,INC.v.ABRAHAMMUSA,etal.XsX   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  h @@No.727291T.D.;TheHonorableJohnR._McCarroll_,Jr.,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W199900378_COA_ԄR3CVNovember22,2000 '  AV) ` dE<` A      XXXXsThisappealinvolvesabreachofcontractregardingacommissionowedforthesaleofabusiness.  Allied,thebroker,claimsthatAbed_Amro_Ԁowesitacommissionbasedonthecontractbetweenthe  parties._Amro_,however,claimsthatheisnotliableundertheListingAgreementeventhoughitis  undisputedthathesignedthecontract.ThetrialcourtheldthatAlliedwasnotentitledtoajudgment z against_Amro_Ԁbecause_Amro_Ԁdidnothaveanownershipinterestinthebusinessthatwassold.We f reverse.#XsXXX##XXsz#XsX R  Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversedand .~ Remanded  n   #Xs##XsX.AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andHolly N KirbyLillard,J.,joined. > P.PrestonWilson,Memphis,forAppellant  JohnF.Watson,Memphis,forAppellees    OPINION #XXs% #XsX "! #XXs #XsX  XXXXs@FactsandProceduralHistory N&!%    AlliedBusinessBrokersInc.,( Allied)isinthebusinessofactingasabrokerinthe :'"& purchaseandsaleofbusinesses.Mr.RandGray( Gray)isanaffiliatedbrokerwithAllied.Gray &(v#' metwithMr.Abed_Amro_Ԁ( _Amro_)onMay12,1995,todiscussthepossibilityofAlliedactingas )b$( thebrokerforthesaleofabusinessknownasParkwayDiscountGrocery( Grocery)inMemphis. )N%)   Thereisconflictingtestimonyoverwhether_Amro_Ԁsaidhehadanownershipinterestinthe +&'+ Grocery._Amro_ԀclaimedthathetoldGraythathisfriend,Mr.AbrahamMusa( Musa),wantedto ,(, sellhisbusiness,andthat_Amro_ԀhadnointerestintheGrocery.Moreover,_Amro_Ԁtestifiedattrial -(- thatMusadidnotspeakEnglishverywell,andthathewasjustbringingGrayandMusatogether.  Gray,ontheotherhand,testifiedthat_Amro_ԀsaidhehadaninterestintheGrocery.Specifically,Gray  testifiedthat_Amro_ԀtoldhimthathewasMusaspartnerandthatMusaoperatedtheGroceryandthey  sharedprofits. t   AfterthepartieshaddiscussedthepossibilityofAlliedbrokeringthesaleandthe L  commissionarrangement,Graypresentedadocumentknownasan AuthorizationtoSellora 8   ListingAgreementto_Amro_ԀandwantedhimtosignitbecauseGraysaidhedidnotknowMusa. $ t Although_Amro_ԀwashesitantinsigningtheListingAgreementatfirst,heeventuallysignedthe  ` agreement.After_Amro_ԀsignedtheListingAgreement,Grayand_Amro_ԀwenttoseeMusa.Gray  L  discussedthetermsoftheListingAgreementwithMusaandMusaalsosignedtheListing  8  Agreement. $    TheListingAgreementgaveAlliedthe soleandexclusiverighttoselltheGrocery.In   addition,theListingAgreementprovidedinpertinentpart, [_t]he_ԀSellerAgrees:Topaythebroker   thebrokeragefee....:(b)ifthebusinessissold,transferred,leasedorconveyedinwholeorinpart   foranypriceortermsduringthetermofthisagreement....Moreover,theListingAgreement p providedforanexclusivelistingperiodthatlasted180daysandpaymentofacommissionof12% \ ofthesaleprice,or$7,500.00,whicheverwasgreater. H   Afterthecontractwassignedbyboth_Amro_ԀandMusa,Graywentbacktohisofficeand  p preparedaprofileoftheGrocerytoaidinitssale.Additionally,GraybeganusingAlliedsdatabase  \ ofcustomerstotrytofindapurchaserfortheGrocery.Moreover,Grayplacedadvertisementsin H thenewspaperregardingtheGrocery.Accordingly,Graytookapproximatelyfourpotentialbuyers 4 toseetheGroceryoverapproximatelyonemonth.WhileGraywasshowingapotentialpurchaser   theGrocery,GraylearnedthattheGroceryhadalreadybeensold.Asaresult,Graycontacted_Amro_.   _Amro_ԀstatedthatthepersonthatGrayhadfoundinthestorewasdoingtheir duediligenceandthat  nomoneyhadtransferred.AccordingtoGray,_Amro_Ԁalsoacknowledgedthatheowedacommission  basedonthesaleofthebusiness.    TheGrocerywassoldfor$60,000,butthesalewasnotbrokeredthroughAllied._Amro_ X  claimedthatheneverreceivedanymoneyfromthesale.Grayneverreceivedhiscommissionfrom D! eitherMusaor_Amro_. 0"    ThecasebeganintheShelbyCountyGeneralSessionsCourtonJuly28,1995.Thecourt $X" enteredjudgmentforAlliedfor$14,559.00.Musaand_Amro_ԀappealedtotheShelbyCountyCircuit $D # Court.ThecircuitcourtenteredsummaryjudgmentforAlliedintheamountof$14,559.00on %0!$ December8,1995.InMay1996,PlaintiffandDefendantsenteredintoasettlementconditioned &"% uponDefendantsmakingmonthlypaymentstoAllied.Intheeventthat_Amro_ԀandMusadefaulted '#& onthemonthlypaymentstoAllied,theprevioussummaryjudgmentwouldbereinstatedandthecase (#' wouldresumeasifthesettlementhadneveroccurred.Defendantsdefaultedintheirpaymentsto )$( Allied,andAlliedcommencedexecution. |*%)  h+&*   OnMay9,1997,AlliedtookavoluntarynonsuitastoDefendant_Amro_.Later,Allied  amendeditscomplainttoadd_Amro_ԀasaDefendant.Attrial,thecourtfoundforAlliedwithrespect  toDefendantMusaandenteredjudgmentintheamountof$17,346.00.   #  1      ׀Thecourt,however,found  forDefendant_Amro_. t   ThesoleissueforourreviewiswhetherthetrialcourterredindenyingAlliedsclaimfor L  commissionunderthecontractsignedby_Amro_Ԁonthebasisthat_Amro_Ԁwasnotaprincipalorpartner 8  intheGrocery. $ t    StandardofReview  8       Whenacivilactionisheardbyatrialjudgesittingwithoutajury,ourreviewofthematter   isdenovoontherecord,accompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefindingsbelow.See   Fosterv._Bue_,749S.W.2d736,741(Tenn.1988);_T.R.A.P._Ԁ13(d).Wemaynotreversethefindings   offactmadebythetrialjudgeunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence.See   _Jahn_Ԁv._Jahn_,932S.W.2d939,941(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Thispresumptionofcorrectness, p however,doesnotattachtothetrialjudgeslegaldeterminationsorthetrialcourtsconclusionsthat \ arebasedonundisputedfacts.See_NCNB_Ԁ_Natl_ԀBankv._Thrailkill_,856S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.Ct. H App.1993). `   4    `     h      p   LawandAnalysis  \      Thecourtbelowspecificallyfoundthat_Amro_ԀsignedtheListingAgreementandthat_Amro_ 4 wasnotunderanyduresswhenhesignedtheListingAgreement.Notwithstandingthesefindings,   thecourtdidnotallowAlliedtorecoveragainst_Amro_.Thecourtbelowwantedsomeproofthat   _Amro_Ԁwasaprincipal,partner,orinsomewayaffiliatedwiththeGrocery.    Wehavecarefullyresearchedtheissuepresentedtous,andwemustrespectfullydisagree  withthetrialcourtsconclusionthat_Amro_ԀmusthaveanownershipinterestintheGrocerybefore l hecanbeliableunderthetermsofthebrokeragecontract.First,itisundisputedthat_Amro_Ԁsigned X  theListingAgreementfreelyandwithoutduress.Itisinterestingtousthat_Amro_Ԁwashesitantatfirst D! tosigntheListingAgreement.Thisshowsusthat_Amro_Ԁknewthesignificanceofthedocumentand 0"  thathewashesitanttobecomeliableforthecommission.Nonetheless,_Amro_Ԁdidinfactsignthe #l! ListingAgreement. $X"   TheListingAgreementisasimpletwopagecontract.Itplainlystates, [_t]he_ԀSellerAgrees: %0!$ (4)Topaythebrokeragefeehereafterstateduponoccurrenceofanyofthefollowingevents:(b)[_i]f_ &"% theBusinessissold,transferred,leased,mergedorconveyedinwholeorinpartforanypriceor '#& termsduringthetermofthisagreement.Additionally,thecontractplainlysetsoutthebrokerage (#' feethatwillbeowedifthebusinessissold.TheListingAgreementclearlystatesthat, [_m]inimum_ )$( FeeShallBe:12%ofconsiderationofsalebutnotlessthan$7,500.00.Furthermore,atthebottom  ofthecontractitstates, AGREEDTHESELLER(S):AgreedtheSeller(s)whobysigningbelow  affirmthat(they)(he)(she)havereadandunderstandthecontentsofthisAgreementandfurther  agreethattheprovisionsofthisAgreementarebindinguponSeller(s)heirs,successors,and/or t assigns.Belowtheaforementionedstatementis_Amro_ssignaturealongwiththesignatureofMusa. `   Oursupremecourthasstatedthefollowing: 8    Topermitaparty,whensuedonawrittencontract,toadmitthathe $ t signeditbuttodenythatitexpressestheagreementhemadeorto  ` allowhimtoadmitthathesigneditbutdidnotreaditorknowits  L  stipulationswouldabsolutelydestroythevalueofallcontracts.In  8  thisconnectionithasbeensaidthatoneisunderadutytolearnthe $  contentsofawrittencontractbeforehesignsit,andthatif,without   beingthevictimoffraud,hefailstoreadthecontractorotherwiseto   learnofitscontents,hesignsthesameathisperil,andis_estopped_Ԁto   denyhisobligation,willbeconclusivelypresumedtoknowthe   contentsofthecontract,andmustsuffertheconsequences. p   _Beasley_Ԁv.MetropolitanLifeIns.Co.,229S.W.2d146,148(Tenn.1950)(internalcitationsomitted). H Intheabsenceoffraudormistake,acontractmustbeinterpretedandenforcedaswritteneven 4 thoughitcontainstermswhichmaybethoughtharshandunjust.SeeAllstateIns.Co.v.Wilson,  p 856S.W.2d706,708(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Tenn.CodeAnn.4750112(1995).Moreover,this  \ courthasstatedthat, courtsdonotrewritecontractsmerelybecauseapartywasunwisetoagreeto H atermtherein.Carringtonv.W.A._Soefker_Ԁ&Son,Inc.,624S.W.2d894,897(Tenn.Ct.App. 4 1981).     _Amro_Ԁarguesthattherewasnomutualassentbetweentheparties.Wedisagree.If_Amro_Ԁhad  notsignedtheListingAgreement,GraywouldnothavelistedtheGroceryforsale.Thiswas  completelyclearbetweentheparties._Amro_ԀwasfreetodeclineGraysinvitationtosigntheListing  AgreementandtoinstructGraythatMusashouldbetheonlyoneliableunderthecontract.If_Amro_ l hadnotsignedtheListingAgreement,Graywouldhavesimplywalkedawaywithoutlistingthe X  Grocery.Instead,_Amro_ԀchosetosigntheListingAgreement,knowingthathissignaturewasa D! conditionprecedenttotheGrocerybeinglistedforsale.Therefore,wemusthold,thatunderthe 0"  narrowcircumstancesofthiscase,_Amro_Ԁisboundbythetermsofthecontracthesigned. #l!    `    h+&* Conclusion       Accordingly,fortheaforementionedreasons,wereversethejudgmentofthetrialcourt  andremandthiscaseforentryofjudgmentconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsaretaxedtoAbed t _Amro_,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. `       ` #XsXXXR ##XXs$ #XsX    h      p    8  Ѐ___________________________________ 8     `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE