WPCr  8#  U N+ %y 0% 0w@b 4  F 0D O 0JW N  0T 0^ 0hW m  B 0r 0|+ 0 0- 1u 0d2 AQb 0D 0@3 0Ds D/ B D3U >6U*tB)DC AM U*W=v~!vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh'() Z 6Times New Roman Regular($74dd7TRY3' LetterY3' Letter 3' Letter 3' LetterT  }74}7!!    (n(2$ !7odd7TRY3' Letter3' 3' Letter3'T  o!     XXXo   `   0   ^6e_`DaDbcEdefӀp_#3|xpCRT Custom Products v. Bennett - Opinion 1 ' IB011C2 (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5P Pd2@ 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   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X"#$&C<< C- -(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ' dxd d(((('dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd#1C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#..\R3'\       ""  33   YYY FILED3XNovember7,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#..\R3'\       $   X .X         _Ms.HutchinsonstestimonyonthispointtakesonadditionalweightwhenitiscorroboratedbytheevidencerelatingtothecreditapplicationMr.BennettcompletedandreturnedfollowingtheApril5,1995meeting.Thepartiescontemporaneousconducthasmoreprobativeforcethantheirlatercontraryprotestationsmadeduringthecourseofalegaldispute.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . ..#//d#\R3'\       _       X \RA'\\RA'\7odd7.  ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE̜. R241A1-j|`  `@RߛCRT,CUSTOMPRODUCTS,INC., )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,  )      )      ) DavidsonChanceryVS.      ) No.953139II      )      ) AppealNo.ROBERTO.BENNETT,  ) 01A019703CH00125      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )@ APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLECAROLL._McCOY_,CHANCELLORForthePlaintiff/Appellant:    FortheDefendant/Appellee:WilliamB.Bradley     JohnS.AndersonBrentwood,Tennessee     Rogersville,Tennessee@ .VACATEDANDREMANDED .        WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE    .@ OPINION . Thisappealinvolvesadisputearisingoutofanoralcontracttomanufacturecompactdisksandaudiocassettes.ThemanufacturerfiledsuitagainstthepurchaserintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyseekingpaymentforundelivereddisksandcassettesthatwerestillbeingheldbythemanufacturer.Thetrialcourtheardthecasewithoutajuryandinvoluntarilydismissedtheproducerscomplaintatthecloseofitscaseinchief.Onthisappeal,themanufacturertakesissuewiththeexclusionofevidenceconcerningthepartieslatercreditagreementandwiththeevidentiaryfoundationforthetrialcourtsfindingsconcerningthetermsoftheircontract.Wehaveconcludedthatthetrialcourtoverlookedtheuncontradictedevidencethatthepartiesmodifiedtheiroriginalagreementandaccordinglyvacatethejudgment.@ I.  CRTCustomProducts,Inc.isaNashvillebusinessthatmanufacturescompactdisksandaudiocassettes.ItscustomersprovideCRTwiththeirartistsmasterrecording,andthenCRTsubcontractsfortheproductionofthecompactdisksoraudiocassettes.Afterthedisksandcassetteshavebeenrecorded,CRTpackagesthedisksandcassettesintoacompletedproductreadyfordistribution. RobertBennett,theownerofEncoreRecords,wasoneofCRTscustomers.Hiscustomaryorderswerealwayslessthen5,000units(eitherdisksorcassettesoracombinationofboth).SinceMr.BennetthadnotestablishedcreditwithCRT,thepaymenttermsofhisordersrequiredhimtopayfiftypercentwhenheplacedtheorderandtopaytheremainingfiftypercentwhenhereceivedthecompleteddisksandcassettes. BennyWilsonwasoneofEncoreRecordsartists.Whenhebegantoenjoysomecommercialsuccessinearly1995,Mr.BennettplacedanorderwithCRTfor1,500moredisksand2,000morecassettesofBennyWilsons BigStinkalbum.SinceCRThadalreadyreceivedinquiriesfromdistributorsabouttheamountofBennyWilsonproductsonhand,LarryNelson,oneofCRTsneweroutsidesalespersons,contactedMr.BennettaboutplacingalargerorderofBennyWilsondisksandcassettes. Mr.Bennettwasinterestedinpurchasingadditionaldisksandcassettesbutwasconcernedaboutthepaymenttermsandaboutstoringtheseproductspriortodistribution.Mr.NelsontoldMr.Bennettthathewouldreceiveapricebreakifheorderedatleast5,000disksand5,000cassettes.AfterconsultingwithCRT,healsoinformedMr.BennettthatCRTwouldstorethedisksandcassettesandthatitwoulddropshipordersforMr.Bennettathisdirection.Mr.NelsonalsoinformedMr.BennettthatCRTwouldbillhimforthedisksandcassetteswhentheywereshipped.OnMarch23,1995,Mr.Bennettacceptedthesetermsandordered5,000disksand5,000cassettesfromMr.Nelson. ThetransactionbegantounravelafterMr.BennettplacedhisorderonMarch23,1995.Mr.BennettbecameconcernedbecauseCRThadnotcompletedthedisksandcassettesbyMarch31,1995aspromised.Ontheotherhand,Kevin_Wessner_,CRTsmarketingdirector,discoveredthatMr.Bennetthadnotprovidedhisusualdepositandrequestedwrittenconfirmationoftheorder.Mr.NelsonalsotelephonedMr.Bennetttoinformhimthathissuperiorswerenot intotalagreementwiththetermsoftheirMarch23,1995agreement. Mr.BennetttelephonedCherylHutchinsontoarrangeforameetingtoresolvetheseproblems,andtheyagreedtomeetinMr.BennettsofficeonApril5,1995.OnApril5,1995,Mr.BennettandoneofhisemployeesmetwithMs.Hutchinson,Mr._Wessner_,andMr.Nelson.Mr.BennettexplainedhisunderstandingofhisagreementwithMr.Nelson,andMs.HutchinsonrespondedthatCRTcouldnotdobusinessonthatbasisbecauseCRTwouldnotbepaidforthedisksandcassettesiftheywerenevershipped.Asanalternative,sheofferedtoprovideMr.BennettuptoninetydayscreditonthisorderandonfutureordersifhewouldcompleteandreturnaCRTcreditapplication.AccordingtoMs.Hutchinson,Mr.BennettagreedtoherofferandcompletedandreturnedCRTscreditapplicationonApril11,1995. OnseveraldatesinAprilandMay1995,CRTforwardedinvoicestoEncoreRecordstotaling$11,159.38.WhenCRTdidnotreceivepaymentforitsinvoices,itfiledsuitagainstMr.BennettintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty.ThetrialcourtheardthecasewithoutajuryonDecember9,1996,andinvoluntarilydismissedCRTscomplaintatthecloseofitscaseinchief.ThetrialcourtreasonedthatthetermsoftheagreementbetweenMr.BennettandMr.Nelsonwere clearfromtheevidenceandthatMr.Bennettwasnotrequiredtopayforthedisksandcassettesuntilordershadbeenplacedandshipmentshadbeenmade.@ II.@ ExclusionoftheCreditApplication  WewillfirstconsiderthetrialcourtsdecisiontoexcludethecreditapplicationMr.BennettsubmittedtoCRTfollowingtheApril5,1995meeting.ThetrialcourtconcludedthatthisevidencewasnotrelevantwithregardtothetermsoftheMarch23,1995agreementbetweenMr.BennettandMr.Nelson.ThisdecisionstronglysuggeststhatthetrialcourtoverlookedoneofCRTsprincipletheoriesofrecoverythatthepartiesmodifiedtheiroriginaloralagreementattheApril5,1995meeting. Relevantevidenceisevidencethathas anytendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactthatisofconsequencetothedeterminationoftheactionmoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence.Tenn.R._Evid_.401.Evidenceneednotbe_dispositive_Ԁtoberelevant;rather,itmustmaketheexistenceofamaterialfactmoreprobableorlessprobablethatitwouldbewithouttheevidence.SeeBridgesv._CSX_ԀTransp.,Inc.,845S.W.2d760,764(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);NeilP.Cohenetal.,TennesseeLawofEvidence401.3,at83(3ded.1995).RelevantevidenceispresumptivelyadmissibleunlessitisrenderedinadmissiblebyanotherlegalrulegleanedfromoneofthefivesourcesidentifiedinTenn.R._Evid_.402. CRTscomplaintembodiestwoalternativetheoriesofrecovery.Thefirsttheoryisthattherehadbeena _miscommunication_betweenMr.BennettandMr.NelsonandthatCRThadneveragreedthatitwouldnotbillMr.Bennettforthedisksandcassettescoveredbytheagreementuntiltheywereshipped.ThesecondtheoryofrecoveryisthatMr.BennettandMs.HutchinsonmodifiedtheoriginalagreementonApril5,1995whentheyagreedtosubstituteaninetydaycreditarrangementfortheoriginalagreementthatMr.Bennettwouldnotbebilledforthedisksandcassettesuntiltheywereshipped.  d  ThetrialcourtproperlyconcludedthatMr.BennettscreditapplicationisirrelevantwithregardtoCRTsfirsttheoryofrecovery.ThisevidenceshedsnolightonthetermsoftheoriginalagreementbetweenMr.BennettandMr.Nelson.Thetrialcourtsdecisionis,however,incorrectinsofarasCRTssecondtheoryofrecoveryisconcernedbecauseMr.BennettscontemporaneouscompletionoftheapplicationforcreditprovidesdirectevidencesubstantiatingMs.HutchinsonstestimonythatsheandMr.Bennettagreedtosubstitutetheoriginalpaymenttermsofthistransactionforthecredittermscontainedinthecreditapplication.InthewordsofTenn.R._Evid_.401,theproofconcerningthecircumstancessurroundingthesubmissionoftheapplicationforcreditrendersMs.HutchinsonstestimonyconcerningherApril5,1995agreementwithMr.Bennettmoreprobable.Accordingly,thetrialcourtincorrectlyexcludedtheevidenceofMr.Bennettsapplicationforcreditonrelevancygrounds.@ III.@ TheInvoluntaryDismissal  WenowturntothetrialcourtsdecisiontodismissCRTscomplaintpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)atthecloseofitscaseinchief.LikeitsdecisiontoexcludeMr.Bennettscreditapplication,thetrialcourtsdecisionindicatesthatitoverlookedCRTssecondtheoryofrecovery.Basedonourreviewoftheevidence,thetrialcourtshouldnothavedismissedCRTscontractualclaimbecauseofMs.HutchinsonsuncontradictedtestimonythatsheandMr.BennettagreedonApril5,1995toreplacethepaymenttermsoftheoriginalagreementwiththecreditarrangementembodiedinthecreditapplication.@ A.  ATenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motionteststhestrengthoftheplaintiffscase.See_Merriman_Ԁv.Smith,599S.W.2d548,560(Tenn.Ct.App.1979).AcomplaintshouldbedismissedinresponsetoaTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motiononlyif,basedonthelawandthefactsinevidence,theplaintiffhasfailedtodemonstratearighttothereliefbeingsought.SeeCityofColumbiav._C.F.W._Constr.Co.,557S.W.2d734,740(Tenn.1977).WhenaTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motionisfiled,thetrialcourtmustimpartiallyweighandevaluatetheplaintiffsevidencejustasitwouldatthe    conclusionofalltheevidenceandmustdenythemotioniftheplaintiffhasmadeoutaprimafaciecasebyapreponderanceoftheevidence.SeeHarrogateCorp.v.SystemSalesCorp.,915S.W.2d812,818(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);Smithv._Inman_ԀRealtyCo.,846S.W.2d819,822(Tenn.Ct.App.1992). OnappealfromaTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)dismissal,wemustreviewtheevidencedenovoandmustpresumethatthetrialcourtsfactualfindingsarecorrectunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.See_Catt_Ԁv._Catt_,866S.W.2d570,574(Tenn.Ct.App.1993);_Willowbrook_ԀHomeHealthCareAgency,Inc.v.WillowBrookRetirementCtr.,769S.W.2d862,865(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).Weneednot,however,presumethatthetrialcourtsresolutionofdisputedfactualissuesiscorrectwhenthetrialcourtmakesnofactualfindings.See_Devorak_Ԁv.Patterson,907S.W.2d815,818(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).@ B.  ThepleadingsframethepartiesdisputeoverwhetherMr.BennettandMs.HutchinsonamendedtheoriginalagreementattheirApril5,1995meeting.CRTscomplaintallegesthatthepartiesmodifiedtheiragreementduringtheApril5,1995meeting;whileMr.BennettsanswerdeniesthatheintendedforthecreditapplicationtomodifyhisoriginalagreementwithMr.Nelson.Sincetheseallegationsarenotevidence,see_Hillhaven_ԀCorp.v.Stateexrel.ManorCare,Inc.,565S.W.2d210,212(Tenn.1978);Statev.Draper,800S.W.2d489,493(Tenn._Crim_.App.1990),wemustturntotheproofintroducedattrialtodeterminewhetherCRTmadeoutaprimafaciecasethatthepartiesmodifiedtheoriginalagreementsufficienttowithstandaTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motion. Theexistenceofamodificationtoacontractmustbeestablishedthesamewayasestablishinganyothercontract.See6ArthurCorbin,CorbinonContracts1293,at188(1962).Thepartyseekingtomakeoutaprimafaciecasethatacontracthasbeenmodifiedmustprovethecontractingpartiesmutualassenttothemodification,seeBatsonv.PleasantViewUtil.Dist.,592S.W.2d578,582(Tenn.Ct.App.1979),andmustsprovethatthemodificationwassupportedbyadequateconsideration.SeeBonastiav.BermanBros.,914F.Supp.1533,1538(W.D.Tenn.1995).Ifthemodificationisinwritingsignedbythepartytobecharged,thewritingitselfconstitutesprimafacieevidenceofconsideration.Tenn.CodeAnn.4750103(1995);Atkinsv.Kirkpatrick,823S.W.2d547,552(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). Ms.HutchinsontestifiedthatshetoldMr.BennettduringtheirApril5,1995meetingthatCRTwouldnotdobusinesswithhimonthetermsofferedbyMr.Nelson.Sheofferedtoreplacethe billingonshipmentarrangementwitha ninetydaycreditarrangementandrequestedMr.Bennetttocompleteandreturnacreditapplicationifhewishedtodobusinessonthesenewterms.Ms.HutchinsonalsotestifiedthatMr.BennettagreedtothenewcredittermsafterexpressingconfidencethatBennyWilsonsalbumwouldcontinuetobepopular. Mr.BennettsattorneyundertooktoprovethatthecreditapplicationcompletedbyMr.BennettaftertheApril5,1995meetingdidnotapplytothecontractatissueinthiscase.Hewasnotsuccessful.WhenhecrossexaminedMs.Hutchinsononthispoint,shetestifiedspecificallythatthepartiesagreedthatthenewcredittermswouldapplytothepresentorderaswellastofutureorders.Mr.BennettwasalsocalledasanadversewitnessduringCRTscaseinchief.WhilehetestifiedatsomelengthaboutthetermsofhisoriginalagreementwithMr.Nelson,hedidnottestify,eitherondirectorcrossexamination,aboutwhetherthepartiesagreedtomodifytheoriginalpaymenttermsofthetransactionattheirApril5,1995meeting. Mr.BennettstestimonyleftuncontradictedMs.HutchinsonstestimonythatthepartiesmodifiedthepaymenttermsoftheorderonApril5,1995.Testimonythatisuncontradictedornototherwisediscreditedmustbeacceptedastrue,see_Gleason_Ԁv.PrudentialFireIns.Co.,127Tenn.8,30,151_S.W._Ԁ1030,1036(1912);Phillips_Buttorff_Ԁ_Mfgg_ԀCo.v._McAlexander_,15Tenn.App.618,627(1932),andthefactfindermaynotarbitrarilyrefusetoconsiderit.See_Biggs_Ԁv.Johnson,1Tenn._Cas_.(Shannon)622,628(1876);Waltersv._Staton_,21Tenn.App.401,407,111S.W.2d381,384(1937). ByfocusingsointentlyonthetermsoftheMarch23,1995agreementbetweenMr.BennettandMr.Nelson,thetrialcourtoverlookedthefactthatCRThadmadeoutaprimafaciecasethatMr.BennetthadbreachedtheoralagreementasmodifiedonApril5,1995.InevaluatingthestrengthofCRTscaseinresponsetoMr.BennettsTenn.R.Civ.P.41.02(2)motion,thetrialcourtwasnotfreetoignoreMs.HutchinsonsuncontradictedtestimonythatthepartiesagreedonApril5,1995thattheiragreementwouldbesubjecttothetermsinCRTscreditapplication. 5   ׀Accordingly,theevidence,asitexistedatthecloseofCRTscaseinchief,preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsconclusionthatthepartiescontractwasgovernedbythetermsagreedtobyMr.BennettandMr.NelsononorbeforeMarch23,1995.@ IV.  WevacatethejudgmentdismissingCRTscomplaintagainstMr.Bennettandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoRobertO.Bennettforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.      _____________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION_________________________________BENH._CANTRELL_,JUDGE