WPC$ i߇/ϨTQ;j"<,l ~#[ߧI[vBEYҪ~yHg(tx) axّHH S*:|^ 9FPjs.S픅WKplK6E8fjmSYxwR:ߪ BLӨ=9WplO42NM0cYWjW \F1QT]xjE̫SҨ!UOZ6C(DtMUQ$w9YjqM؋",pCdw .df1]k z#Y{$-YbT""NFѤN'UAb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a ' 1NtUNv|E@U0B 1ur 72b 0!!!! B   0) D3 D- 0K-- ASx 0 0D5 AyHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0FtY)L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-( C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular r R!f$      1  L   _While_Beasley_ԀandMr.Ralphenteredintoseveraladditionalcontractsduringthisperiod,inthiscaseweare  onlyconcernedwiththetwocottondeliverycontractsonMay25,andJune8,1995.2 `CG Times3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- -(|G2!f$ !.8\dd8         0  ҄ d(|3A$ !.8\dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ddd8     _  D8XXdd8  @ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#D #Ԉ ,   AssignedonBriefsJuly14,2000 X XXD #DXX#CAROLYNB._BEASLEY_ԀCOTTONCOMPANYv._KEM_ԀRALPH,  ` Individuallyandd/b/aRALPHBROTHERSXXD  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtfor_Tipton_ԀCounty 0  @@No.15,011DeweyC._Whitenton_,Chancellor  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W199900273_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober25,_2000_ ?  AV) ` dE<` A     XaEXXXThisappealarisesfromabreachofcontractbetweenFarmerandBroker.Aftersigningacontract  todelivercottontoBroker,Farmerfailedtodoso.Brokerwasthenforcedtopurchasethecotton   elsewhereforasubstantiallossandbroughtsuittorecoverthelosses.Atthestartofthetrial,Farmer  requestedthatthetrialcourtdismissthecaseandorderthepartiestoproceedtoarbitration.Finding  thatFarmerhadwaivedhisrightsunderthecontracttoarbitration,thetrialcourtrefused. ~ Proceedingwiththecase,courtfoundthatFarmerhadbreachedthecontractandawardeddamages j toBroker.Weaffirm. V   #XXXXaE##DXX#XXD Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;and 2 Remanded.  "r   #DX #XX.DDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., R andHollyK.Lillard,J.,joined. B DavidM._Livingston_,Brownsville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Kem_ԀRalph.  " RussellW.Savory,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,CarolynB._Beasley_ԀCottonCompany. "!   OPINION #DXX #XXD $# #DXX? #XXDXaEXXX     OnMay25andagainonJune8,1995,_Kem_ԀRalphenteredintowrittencontractswiththe r&!% CarolynB._Beasley_ԀCottonCompany(_Beasley_)._  #  1      _ԀEachcontractstatedthatMr.Ralphwouldsell ^'"& _Beasley_Ԁ100balesofcottonduringthe199596cropyear.Thedisputeinthiscasearosesometime J(#' betweenDecemberof1995andFebruaryof1996,witheachpartyarguingadifferentsetoffacts. 6)$( Mr.Ralphclaimsthatheinformed_Beasley_ԀinDecemberof1995thathewouldbeunabletofulfill "*r%) hiscontracts._Beasley_ԀclaimsthatithadnonoticethatMr.Ralphintendedtobreachthesecontracts  untilitsentdemandsfordeliveryinlateJanuaryandearlyFebruaryof1996thatwentunanswered.  Itisundisputed,however,that_Beasley_ԀreceivednocottonfromMr.Ralphandhadtopurchase  cottonontheopenmarkettofulfillitsobligations,resultinginalossto_Beasley_Ԁof$13,050._Beasley_ t demandedreimbursementfromMr.Ralphforthisloss,anduponreceivingnoreply,filedsuitfor ` breachofcontract. L    BothsidesconductedpretrialdiscoverybeforethetrialdatesetinAugust,1997.However, $ t atthebeginningofthistrial,Mr.Ralphmovedthecourtthatthecasebesenttobindingarbitration  ` asprovidedinthecontract.Thetrialcourtthendelayedthestartofthetrialandtookthisrequest  L  underconsideration.Thereafter,thecourtfoundthatMr.Ralph,byhisfailuretorequestarbitration  8  beforethescheduledstartofthetrial,hadwaivedhisrighttoarbitrationanddeniedthemotion.The $  trialwasconductedinMarch1999.ThecourtrejectedMr.Ralphsargumentsthatthecontractshad   nosetpriceandwerethusunenforceable.Italsofoundthat_Beasley_Ԁhadactedproperlytomitigate   itsdamages.Assuch,Mr.Ralphwasorderedtopay$13,050indamages,plusprejudgmentinterest,   attorneysfeesandcourtcosts.Thisappealfollowed.     Theissuespresentedbytheappellantonappeal,asweperceivethem,areasfollows: \ 8  1.8`   Didthetrialcourterrindenyingthemotiontotransferthismatterto 4 arbitrationasprovidedunderthecontract? p` x` x  (5h83! !8  2.8`   Didthetrialcourterrinfailingtofindthecontractvoiddueto H contradictingtermsregardingprice?4` x` x 8  3.8`   Didthetrialcourterrinfailingtoreducethedamagesthrougha   findingthat_Beasley_Ԁdidnotacttomitigateitsdamages?` x` x Totheextentthattheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis de  novo withapresumptionofcorrectness. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Accordingly,wemaynot l reversethecourtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. X   See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).With D! respecttothecourtslegalconclusions,however,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionof 0"  correctness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyderv._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,_Furen_Ԁand_Ginsburg_, #l! P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Theinterpretationofawritten $X" contractisamatteroflaw,andthus,nopresumptionofcorrectnessinitsinterpretationexists. See $D # NSA_DBA_ԀBenefitPlan,Inc.v.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co. ,968S.W.2d791(Tenn.Ct.App. %0!$ 1997). &"%    h+&* Arbitration        Thiscourtrecentlyaddressedthequestionofthewaiverofarbitrationin ReboundCare  Corp.v.UniversalConstructors,Inc. ,No.M199900868_COA_ԄR3CV,2000WL758610,at*1 t (Tenn.Ct.App.June13,2000)( noperm.app.filed ).Westatedinthatcasethat ` 8  [_i]n_Ԁgeneral,eveninthosejurisdictionswhereacontractforarbitrationisirrevocable, 8  therighttoarbitrationunderthecontractmaybewaivedeitherbyexpresswordsor $ t bynecessaryimplication,forexample,wheretheconductofapartyclearlyindicates  ` anintenttowaivetherighttoarbitrate.Inthosecasesinvolvingtheissueofwhether  L  thedefendantsparticipationinanactionconstitutesawaiveroftherighttoarbitrate  8  thedisputeinvolvedtherein,nogeneralrulesarereadilyapparentfordetermining $  waiverotherthanthegeneraladherencebythecourtstotheprinciplethatwaiveris   tobedeterminedfromtheparticularfactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.  ...    _ Id._Ԁ at*7(citationomitted).Examiningfurther,wenotedthat [_w]#XXXXaE #XS-XXXaiver_Ԁisamatteroffacttobe   shownbytheevidence.#XXXXS-&#XaEXXX Id. at*6(quoting _Koontz_Ԁv.Fleming ,65S.W.2d821,824(Tenn.Ct.App. t 1933)). d   ThedeterminationofwhetherMr.Ralphwaivedhisrighttoarbitrationisafactual < determinationforthetrialcourt.Thus,wemaynotreversethecourtsfindingsinthismatterunless (x itiscontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937S.W.2d d 815,819(Tenn.1996);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Uponourexaminationoftherecord,wenoteseveral P actionsbyMr.Ralphthatsuggesthewaivedhisrighttoarbitration.Asstatedinthetrialcourts < opiniondenyingthemotiontoproceedtoarbitration,Mr.Ralphfiledananswerto_Beasley_soriginal ( ComplaintForDamages,aswellasananswerto_Beasley_sRequestforProductionofDocuments.  Inaddition,Mr.Ralphtookpretrialdepositions,filedpretrialmotionsandattendedpretrial  settlementconferences.Indeed,Mr.Ralphmadenomentionofthearbitrationclauseuntilthe  originaltrialcourtdatewhenhefiledamotiontoreferthemattertoarbitration.Withthisevidence,  wecannotstatethatthetrialcourtsrulingiscontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence.Assuch, t weherebyaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisionthatMr.Ralph,throughhisactionssurroundingthis `  dispute,waivedhisrighttoarbitrationunderthecontract. L!   ValidityoftheContracts $#t!       Indeterminingthevalidityofacontract,thecourtshould ascertaintheintentionofthe $L # partiesfromthecontractasawholeand...giveeffecttothatintentionconsistentwithlegal %8!$ principles. _Winfree_Ԁv.EducatorsCreditUnion ,900S.W.2d285,289(Tenn.Ct.App.  1995), &$"%  perm.app.denied (Tenn.May01,1995)(citationsomitted). Thewordsexpressingtheintentions '#& ofthepartiesshould begiventheir usualandordinarymeanings. SeeTaylorv.WhiteStores,Inc. , ($' 707S.W.2d514,516(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Thus,itisnecessaryforthiscourttoexaminethe )$( disputedportionofthecontracttoascertaintheintentionsoftheparties.Thisexaminationwillallow *%) ustodetermineifthepartiesformedthemeetingofthemindsrequiredforavalidcontract. x+&* Ї  Mr.Ralpharguesthatthecontractheenteredintowith_Beasley_Ԁdidnotrepresentameeting  ofthemindsbetweenthetwopartiesastothepricetobepaid.Thepriceportionofthedisputed  contractstates:  8  PRICEANDOTHERTERMS:THEPRICESTOBEPAIDFORACCEPTABLE ` COTTONSHALLBEASFOLLOWS:L    8  **__73.00NET__**, 41COLOR4&BETTERLEAF,34ANDLONGER 8  STAPLE,3.54.9_MICRONAIRE_Ԁ199495_C.C.C._ԀLOANDISCOUNTSTOAPPLY $ t EXCEPT:1NOPREMIUMFORSTAPLELONGERTHAN11/16".250  ` POINTSPREMIUMPAIDFOR31&BETTERCOLOR3&BETTERLEAFAND  L  11/16"&LONGER.3THEREWILLBENOPREMIUMPAIDFORLEAF  8  GRADESHIGHERTHANTHECORRESPONDINGCOLORGRADES(I.E.A51 $  COLORWITH3LEAFWILLBEPAIDARTHE515VALUE.)4NO   _MICRONAIRE_ԀORSTRENGTHPREMIUMS.5NOPREMIUMFORCOLOR   GRADE31LEAF4.6REMARKSAND/OREXTRANEOUSMATTER   DISCOUNTEDANADDITIONAL250_PTS_.RULE5OFTHEMEMPHIS   COTTONEXCHANGETOGOVERN.MODULEAVERAGINGFOR p CLASSIFICATIONACCEPTEDORREJECTEDATBUYERSOPTION. \ COTTONWITHWAREHOUSERECEIPTSDATEDAFTERDECEMBER25, H 1995,SHALLBEDISCOUNTED200POINTSONTHISCONTRACT.4   8  (73.00LESSRESEARCHANDPROMOTIONFEES,IFCOMPRESSCHARGES  p REMAINTHESAME.) \   Mr.Ralpharguesthat 73.00NETwasthepricehebelievedhewouldbepaiduponthedelivery 4 ofhiscotton.Inhistestimony,hedescribesthenetpriceasthemoneyhewouldbepaidafter [_a]ll_   thedeductions._Beasley_Ԁbelievedthatthecontractprovidedforapriceof 73.00lessresearchand   promotionfees.Thus,Mr.Ralpharguesthatashebelievedthatthepricewastobe 73.00NET  and_Beasley_Ԁbelievedthepricetobepaidwas 73.00lessresearchandpromotionfeesand,assuch,  therewasnomeetingoftheminds.    WebelievethatMr.Ralphsargumentignorestheclearlanguageofthecontract.Itis X  apparentfromthecontractthatthepartiesintendedthepricetobepaidas 73.00lessresearchand D! promotionfees.Whiletheterm 73.00NETmayhavebeenconfusing,thesectionofthecontract 0"  referringtopriceclearlystateswhatthefinalpricewouldbeforMr.Ralphscotton.Indeed,Mr. #l! Ralphsownexpert,Mr.JimNunn,testifiedonthismatter.Hestatedthat thenetpricewasthe $X" price unlessthecontractspecifiedcertaindeductions .Mr.Ralphsexpertwentontoexaminethe $D # contractsinthiscaseandnotedthecontractsprovided thesellerpaystheresearchandpromotion. %0!$ Fromthistestimony,itisevidentthatthecontractclearlypresentedthatthefinalpricetobepaidfor &"% Mr.Ralphscottonwas 73.00lessresearchandpromotionfees.Thecontractbetweenthemwas '#& validandweaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthatavalidcontractexistedbetweentheparties. (#' Ѐ )$(  h+&*   MitigationofDamages     #XXXXaE''#XS-XXX    ItisawellestablishedruleinTennesseethatthepartyinjuredbythewrongfulactof  anotherhasalegaldutytoexercisereasonableandordinarycareunderthesecircumstancesto | preventanddiminishthe damages. NorthCarolinaMut.LifeIns.Co.v.Evans ,ShelbyLaw l No.66,1990WL212854,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.31,1990)  (citing ArkansasRiverPacket \  Co.v._Hobbs_ ,58_S.W._Ԁ278(Tenn.1900))#XXXXS-B#XS-XXX.However,aninjuredpartyisnotrequiredtomake L  extraordinaryefforts. Seeid. [_T]he_ burdenofshowingthatlossescouldhavebeenavoidedby <  theplaintiffbyareasonableeffortto mitigatedamagesafterdefendant's breachofcontractison , | thedefendantwho breachedthecontract. Id. (citationsomitted  ).  l    Wenotethataplaintiffisonlyrequiredtomitigatedamagesafterthedefendantsbreach L  ofacontract.Thus,theessentialquestionthatmustbeansweredinthiscaseisexactlywhenthe <  contractwasbreachedbyMr.Ralph.Onlyafterwedeterminetheexactmomentofthebreach ,  ofthecontractcanwedetermine#XXXXS-JE#XaEXXXif_Beasley_Ԁproperlyactedtomitigateitsdamages.If,asMr.Ralph   argues,hebreachedthecontractinDecemberof1995,then_Beasley_Ԁwasunderadutytoactpromptly   tomitigateitsdamages.IfthebreachoccurredinlateJanuaryorearlyFebruaryof1996,then  _Beasley_Ԁproperlyactedtomitigateitsdamages.    Inthiscase,theexactmomentofthebreachisaquestionoffactforthetrialcourttodecide. l Fromthecourtsrulingthat_Beasley_Ԁwasentitledto$13,050inactualdamages,itisclearthatthe X courtfoundthatthecontractbetweenthepartieshadbeenbreachedinlateJanuaryorearlyFebruary D of1996.Assuch,thetrialcourtnecessarilyfoundthat_Beasley_Ԁproperlyactedtomitigateits 0 damages.Asalreadystatedinthisopinion,wemaynotreversethecourtsfactualfindingsunless l theyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937 X S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Uponourexaminationoftherecord,we D cannotsaythatthisfindingiscontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence.Thus,weherebyaffirm 0 thetrialcourtsdecisiononthedateofthebreachofthecontractanditsfindingthat_Beasley_Ԁacted  properlytomitigateitsdamages.    Conclusion          Basedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Costs h"  onappealareassessedagainsttheappellant,_Kem_ԀRalph,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmay T#! issueifnecessary.#XXXXaE I# @$"    `     h     ___________________________________  '\"%    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE