ÿWPC_ ¹È`?!¹€ØkâhR|ð×Ù(åÄ–¹Î}H‹Ê,óAí§î2·8@–àé4ź­Ÿà±f6m~“CX¥‡ŒGäÝ0H×j+»Dÿ:öFê%Þ±9Í9ÿÖÿkIøyŠaG˜zÂþ>µ¯ÕLqð€½«³¾Í´Mœù‡DiÖ2ŽY¼œX儃ó!ª÷`«}9FÃ0žrY¿þ]¥ÂÚïó£+‚usœÛ ç½²“Z[DK† i3·CåCÇsNEäþÔ+L×€!Þ¢ä¡ z¾Qóe_[K˜— ú$]æ¤ÑÏ,È´¯BÃY$N–3ðÝSì´J”3ù°nZap¹]ŠS*kÄÁƒ!;XY“„:,/ï›I+7¸2¹F7±ð¨àS±/²Ÿª´¢G£t }+G_nüE÷ Wâo7“¼Îò¿iofF?FqµJiX=²µQÕVܸuÞQ1à›ï¶NgXʲür"HЉ‘Š[Qž ˆlÁ3¼Ö¼7#ž5PÖ¨7SÑ?ßXìH“ŒêôšžÇ0!‹Ób×@°.Gñ Fæ¤ø5¯ÃtK¤§ÛÔÿ¾N^ÕU4ûÆhø›b7ëÛ-s ¬|&-rtyBar”u¡ ˜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|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 IÝ ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôºUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€trial,€the€defendants€disputed€whether€the€attorney€was€acting€as€their€agent€at€the€time€of€the€conversation.€Ð ° ÐThis€issue€was€not€relied€upon€by€the€trial€court€in€its€decision.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÇÝ ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôºUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDue€to€the€rerouting€of€an€adjacent€road,€the€house€tract€has€changed€in€size€and€shape€since€the€original€grantÐ ° Ðof€this€particular€option.€€However,€these€changes€have€had€no€impact€on€the€validity€of€either€the€title€to,€or€the€validityÐ tÄ Ðof€the€option€to€purchase,€the€subject€property.€€ Ý ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôºUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJohnnie€Rex€Flynn€died€during€the€pendency€of€this€matter.€€The€suit€was€revived€against€his€personalÐ ° Ðrepresentative.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜Ý ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôºUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€option€agreement€provides€that€it€ð ðshall€inure€to€the€benefit€of€and€shall€be€binding€upon€the...assigns€ofÐ ° Ðthe€respective€parties€and€transferees€by€operation€of€law.ðð€€Assignment€is€not€otherwise€addressed€in€the€optionÐ tÄ Ðagreement. çÝ ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôºUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€August€7,€1997,€HGC€conveyed€the€house€tract€to€Cracker€Barrel€Old€County€Store,€Inc.,€for€$2,850,000. Ý ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôºUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€he€did,€putting€on€proof€that€a€ð ðsoldðð€sign€had€not€been€placed€on€the€property.€€The€trial€court€at€theÐ ° Ðsecond€trial€apparently€believed€this€evidence€because€it€held€that€the€affirmative€defenses€asserted€by€the€defendant€wereÐ tÄ Ðnot€made€out;€hence,€the€trial€court€in€the€second€go„around€found€that€the€defendants€were€liable€to€the€plaintiffs.- ù-(|G2{Y$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôºUò»»Ô d(|3i$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3i$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼M»»»ÔÑ8€[áXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îüMÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼M»îîü #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€18,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X[áX»¼MÔÌò òÔ#†¼M»XX[áó#ÔJOHNNY€JESS€DAVIS,€òòet€al.óó€v.€Ð úJ ÐESTATE€OF€JOHNNIE€REX€FLYNN,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X[áX»¼MÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Sevier€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97„1„006€€€€€€O.€Duane€Slone,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€30,€2002Ð Ò"  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02480„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Ð ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓJohnny€Jess€Davis€and€his€wife,€Linda€Diane€Davis,€sued€Johnnie€Rex€Flynn׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€his€wife,€BarbaraÐ ŒÜ ÐFlynn,€for€breach€of€a€written€option€agreement€containing€a€right€of€first€refusal€as€to€real€propertyÐ xÈ Ðin€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€County.€€The€defendantsðð€answer€denies€the€allegations€of€the€complaint;€significantly,€itÐ d´ Ðfails€to€raise€any€affirmative€defenses.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€court€below€entered€judgmentÐ P  Ðfor€the€plaintiffs€in€the€amount€of€$851,000.€€The€defendants€filed€two€post„judgment€motions;€oneÐ <Œ Ðto€amend€the€pleadings€to€conform€to€the€proof€and€another€for€a€new€trial€or,€in€the€alternative,€toÐ (x Ðalter€or€amend€the€judgment.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€amend€the€pleadings,€but€grantedÐ d Ðthe€defendants€a€new€trial.€€Following€a€new€trial€before€a€different€judge,€the€court€below€againÐ P Ðfound€for€the€plaintiffs.€€This€time€it€awarded€them€a€judgment€in€the€amount€of€$381,000.€€TheÐ ì< Ðplaintiffs€appeal,€and€both€parties€raise€issues€pertaining€to€both€trials.€€We€find€the€trial€court€abusedÐ Ø( Ðits€discretion€in€awarding€the€defendants€a€new€trial.€€Accordingly,€we€vacate€the€second€judgmentÐ Ä Ðand€reinstate€the€original€judgment€for€the€plaintiffs.Ð ° ÐÓÎÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ˆØ ÐVacated;€Original€Judgment€for€the€Plaintiffs€in€the€Amount€of€$851,000Ð t Ä ÐReinstated;€Case€Remandedó óÐ `!°  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼M»àX[áš#ÔÔ‡X[áX.¼MÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,Ð 8#ˆ" ÐP.J.óó€and€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó,€joined.Ð $$t# ÐÌLewis€S.€Howard,€Jr.€and€Delicia€R.€Bryant,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Johnny€JessÐ ü%L!% ÐDavis€and€Linda€Diane€Davis.€€Ð è&8"& ÐÌL.€Caesar€Stair,€III€and€Margo€J.€Maxwell,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Estate€of€JohnnieÐ À($( ÐRex€Flynn€by€Charles€I.€Poole,€executor,€and€Barbara€Flynn.€€Ð ¬)ü$) ÐÓÇ ÓÐ ˜*è%*ýÿ Ðò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼M»XX[áö #ÔÔ‡X[áX»¼MÔÐ ° ÐòòóóÔ#†¼M»XX[á¢#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X[áX»¼MÔÌÓ  ÓI.€€òòPleadings/Issues€at€Ô_ÔTrialóóÔ_ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X[áXXX[áÔà  àThe€original€complaint€was€filed€on€January€10,€1997.€€In€it,€the€plaintiffs€alleged€that€theÐ `° Ðdefendants€entered€into€a€written€option€agreement€with€Tommy€Bartlett€of€Tennessee,€Inc.Ð L œ Ð(ð ðBartlettðð),€by€the€terms€of€which€the€defendants€agreed€that€Bartlett€had€a€ð ðright€of€first€refusal€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðpurchaseðð€a€tract€of€property€fronting€on€U.S.€Highway€441€(ð ðthe€Parkwayðð)€in€Pigeon€Forge,€a€resortÐ $ t Ðtown€in€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€County.€€The€complaint€alleges€that€the€option€agreement€was€later€assigned€byÐ  ` ÐBartlett€and€eventually€was€transferred׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X[áXXX[áœ#ÔÔ‡X[áXXX[áÔ€to€the€plaintiffs,€who€recorded€it€in€the€office€of€the€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_ÔÐ ü L  ÐCounty€Register€of€Deeds.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€option€agreement€was€attached€as€an€exhibit€to€the€complaint.€€The€ð ðright€of€first€refusalÐ À  Ðto€purchase,ðð€as€pertinent€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€provides€as€follows:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò òRight€of€First€Refusal€to€Purchaseó ó.€€Ô_ÔFlynnsÔ_Ô€hereby€grant€to€BartlettÐ „Ô  Ðfor€a€period€from€the€execution€hereof€to€May€31,€1997,€a€right€ofÐ tÄ Ðfirst€refusal€to€purchase€as€follows:Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(a)€ò òRight€to€Purchaseó ó.€€If€during€the€said€period€Ô_ÔFlynnsÔ_Ô€desire€to€sellÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€Property,€they€shall€give€written€notice€to€Bartlett€that€they€intendÐ (x Ðto€do€so.€€Thereafter€(but€not€earlier€than€60€days€after€they€haveÐ d Ðgiven€Bartlett€notice€of€their€intent€to€sell€nor€later€than€6€monthsÐ P Ðthereafter),€Ô_ÔFlynnsÔ_Ô€may€give€Bartlett€written€notice€that€they€haveÐ ì< Ðreceived€a€bona€fide€written€offer€they€intend€to€accept,€together€withÐ Ø( Ða€complete€copy€thereof.€€Bartlett€then€shall€have€the€right€to€purchaseÐ Ä Ðthe€Property€at€the€price€and€upon€the€terms€specified€in€the€said€bonaÐ ° Ðfide€offer.€€Bartlett€may€exercise€its€right€to€purchase€only€by€writtenÐ œì Ðnotice€given€within€10€days€after€it€receives€Ô_ÔFlynnsÔ_Ôðð€notice€of€intentÐ ˆØ Ðto€sell.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(b)€ò òRight€to€Purchase€Exercisedó ó.€€If€Bartlett€exercises€its€right€ofÐ L!œ Ðfirst€refusal,€Ô_ÔFlynnsÔ_Ô€shall€sell€and€Bartlett€shall€buy€the€Property€inÐ <"Œ  Ðaccordance€with€the€provisions€of€the€bona€fide€offer.Ð(#x!` x` x ÐÌà@ŽŽ%ìà*€€€€*€€€€*ˆÐ %P # ÐÌ(Emphasis€in€original;€paragraph€numbering€omitted).Ð Ø&("% ÐÐ Ä'#& Їà  àThe€complaint€alleges€that€the€defendants€sold€the€subject€property€to€Pilot€CorporationÐ ° Ð(ð ðPilotðð)€for€$1,999,000,€without€giving€the€plaintiffs€either€of€the€notices€required€by€the€above„Ð œì Ðquoted€portion€of€the€option€agreement.€€Specifically,€the€complaint€alleges€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà8 ` àThe€Ô_ÔFlynnsÔ_Ô€failed€to€provide€the€Plaintiffs€with€written€notice€of€theirÐ `° Ðintent€to€sell€the€Property€as€required€by€the€Option€Agreements€andÐ L œ Ðfurther€failed€to€provide€the€Plaintiffs€with€written€notice€of€theirÐ 8 ˆ Ðreceipt€of€the€Pilot€Option€or€of€their€intent€to€accept€such€offer.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌ(Paragraph€numbering€omitted).€€The€complaint€goes€on€to€allege€that€ð ðthe€fair€market€value€of€theÐ ü L  ÐProperty€is€substantially€higher€than€the€amount€of€consideration€received€by€Defendants€fromÐ è 8  ÐPilot....ðð€€The€complaint€seeks€ð ðjudgment€against€the€Defendants€for€breach€of€the€OptionÐ Ô$  ÐAgreement[]....ððÐ À  ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€filed€their€answer€on€February€18,€1997.€€In€the€answer,€the€defendantsÐ ˜è  Ðadmitted€that€they€entered€into€the€option€agreement€with€Bartlett.€€As€to€the€allegations€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðcomplaint€reciting€that€the€option€agreement€was€subsequently€assigned€and€finally€transferred€to€theÐ pÀ Ðplaintiffs,€the€answer€asserts€that€the€allegations€are€neither€admitted€nor€denied.€€The€answer€goesÐ \¬ Ðon€to€recite€that€the€subject€property€was€sold€to€Pilot€but€denies€that€ð ðsaid€sale€was€in€violation€ofÐ H˜ Ðany€right€of€first€refusal....ðð€€Additional€allegations€of€the€complaint€are€denied.€€The€answer€fails€toÐ 4„ Ðassert€any€affirmative€defenses.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€parties€did€not€amend€their€pleadings€prior€to€the€commencement€of€the€trial€on€June€1,Ð øH Ð1999.€€Thus,€as€framed€by€the€pleadings,€the€plaintiffs€alleged€a€breach€of€contract€action€predicatedÐ ä4 Ðupon€the€defendantsðð€breach€of€the€option€agreement;€and€the€defendants€joined€issue€on€theÐ Ð  Ðallegations€of€the€original€complaint.€€In€general€terms,€the€issues€at€trial,€as€presented€by€theÐ ¼  Ðpleadings,€were€these:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(1)€Was€the€option€agreement,€the€execution€of€which€was€admitted,Ð €Ð Ðassigned€to€the€plaintiffs?Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(2)€Did€the€defendants€breach€the€right€of€first€refusal€provision€inÐ D!” Ðthat€agreement?Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(3)€Were€the€plaintiffs€damaged€by€the€breach?Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(4)€If€so,€what€is€the€amount€of€the€damages?Ô#†X[áXXX[áÞ#ÔÐà%0!$` x` x ÐÌThere€was€no€dispute€at€trial€as€to€the€first€issue.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÐ  )à$( Ðà@ÄÄìàII.€€òòHistory€of€ProceedingsóóˆÐ ° ÐÌÔ‡X[áXXX[áÔà  àThis€matter€was€presented€at€a€bench€trial€on€June€1€and€2,€1999.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðproof,€Chancellor€Bobby€H.€Capers,€sitting€by€interchange,€found€the€issues€joined€in€favor€of€theÐ tÄ Ðplaintiffs.€€The€courtððs€judgment,€entered€June€9,€1999,€recites€that€the€plaintiffs€ð ðhad€a€valid€rightÐ `° Ðof€first€refusalðð€and€that€the€defendantsðð€sale€of€the€property€was€ð ðin€violation€of€such€right€of€firstÐ L œ Ðrefusal.ðð€€The€court€awarded€the€defendants€a€judgment€in€the€amount€of€$851,000.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOn€June€14,€1999,€the€defendants€filed€a€pleading€styled€ð ðMotion€to€Amend€Pleadings€toÐ  ` ÐConform€to€the€Proof.ðð€€Specifically,€the€motion€sought€to€amend€the€answer€to€set€up€the€defenseÐ ü L  Ðof€estoppel.€€It€was€the€theory€of€the€defendants€that€the€ð ðissue€of€estoppel€was€tried€by€expressòòóó[]€orÐ è 8  Ðimplied€consent.ðð€€This€motion€was€followed,€on€June€25,€1999,€by€another€motion,€this€one€styledÐ Ô$  Ðð ðMotion€for€New€Trial€and/or€Alteration€and/or€Amendment€of€Final€Judgment.ðð€€The€trial€courtÐ À  Ðdenied€the€motion€to€amend€the€answer;€but€by€order€entered€October€14,€1999,€the€court€granted€theÐ ¬ü  Ðplaintiffs€a€new€trial.€€The€order€does€not€state€the€trial€courtððs€rationale€for€granting€the€new€trial.€Ð ˜è  ÐHowever,€in€its€concluding€remarks€at€the€hearing€on€the€defendantsðð€motions,€the€trial€court€madeÐ „Ô  Ðthe€following€statements,€apparently€addressed,€for€the€most€part,€to€the€plaintiffsðð€attorney:Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà8 ` àBut€in€fairness€to€your€client,€based€on€what€you€have€told€the€CourtÐ H˜ Ðthat€you€may€very€well€have€taken€a€different€approach€on€this€matterÐ 4„ Ð[if€estoppel€had€been€pled],€the€Court€is€going€to€grant€this€motion€forÐ  p Ða€new€trial.€€I€think€thatððs€the€only€fair€way€to€handle€it,€the€only€thingÐ  \ ÐI€can€do€in€this€matter.€€I€think€the€proof€is€there€to€have€foundÐ øH Ðadverse€to€your€client,€but€in€fairness€to€him,€if€you€feel€like€youÐ ä4 Ðwould€have€been€able€to€properly€address€this€defense,€then€Iððm€goingÐ Ð  Ðto€give€you€the€opportunity.€€So€the€Court€is€going€to€grant€[theÐ ¼  Ðdefendantsðð]€motion€for€a€new€trial.Шø` x` x ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€granting€of€the€new€trial,€this€matter€was€assigned€to€Judge€O.€Duane€Slone.€Ð €Ð ÐThereafter,€an€order€was€entered€permitting€the€defendants€to€amend€their€answer€to€assert€theÐ l¼ Ðdefenses€of€laches,€estoppel€and€waiver.€€A€second€bench€trial,€this€time€before€Judge€Slone,€tookÐ X ¨ Ðplace€on€September€19€and€20,€2001.€€Using€language€almost€identical€to€that€of€the€earlier€judgment,Ð D!” Ðthe€court€again€found€the€issues€joined€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs;€however,€this€time€the€court€awardedÐ 0"€  Ðonly€$381,000.Ô#†X[áXXX[áo(#ÔÐ #l! ÐÌà@ff%ìàIII.€€òòFactsóóˆÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àOn€June€17,€1977,€as€a€part€of€a€larger€real€estate€transaction,€the€defendants€granted€BartlettÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âseveral€options€to€purchase€different€tracts€of€real€property€located€in€Pigeon€Forge.€€The€defendantsððÐ ¸'#& Ðpersonal€residence€was€located€on€one€of€these€tracts€(ð ðthe€house€tractðð),€and€the€option€to€purchaseÐ ° Ðthe€house€tract€ð!ð€containing€approximately€3.52€acres€ð!ð€is€the€subject€of€this€litigation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àEach€of€the€options€contained€a€right€of€first€refusal€entitling€Bartlett€to€notice€of€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantsðð€intent€to€sell€the€property,€as€well€as€notice€of€any€bona€fide€written€offers.€€Bartlett€wasÐ `° Ðgranted€the€right€to€purchase€the€tracts€at€the€price€and€on€the€terms€of€any€pending€offer.€€TheseÐ L œ Ðoptions€had€a€duration€of€twenty€years€and€would€terminate€on€May€31,€1997.€€Bartlett€promptlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecorded€these€options€in€the€office€of€the€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€County€Register€of€Deeds.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€1982,€Bartlett€formally€changed€its€name€to€Water€Ski€Shows,€Incorporated€(ð ðWater€SkiÐ ü L  ÐShowsðð).€€On€January€14,€1987,€Water€Ski€Shows€transferred€its€interest€in€three€of€the€options,Ð è 8  Ðincluding€the€one€as€to€the€house€tract,€to€a€newly„created€corporation,€The€Kingdom€Resort,€Inc.Ð Ô$  Ð(ð ðKRIðð).€€Ô_ÔKRIÔ_Ô€promptly€recorded€the€assignment.€€Water€Ski€Shows€subsequently€went€out€ofÐ À  Ðbusiness.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔKRIÔ_Ô€was€a€corporation€with€two€primary€stockholders,€one€of€whom€was€the€plaintiff€JohnnyÐ „Ô  ÐJess€Davis.€€In€July,€1989,€following€substantial€KRI€financial€losses€and€a€personal€falling€out€withÐ pÀ Ðhis€partner,€Mr.€Davis€withdrew€from€Ô_ÔKRIÔ_Ô.€€He€and€his€partner€entered€into€agreements€to€distributeÐ \¬ Ðthe€partnersðð€interests€in€KRI.€€Among€the€assets€received€by€Mr.€Davis€and€his€wife€in€theÐ H˜ Ðdistribution€was€an€assignment€of€the€three€options,€including€the€option€on€the€house€tract.€€At€trial,Ð 4„ ÐMr.€Davis€testified€that,€due€to€the€land€boom€accompanying€the€opening€of€Dollywood€in€PigeonÐ  p ÐForge,€he€felt€that€these€options€could€be€potentially€very€valuable.€€He€testified€that€he€so€covetedÐ  \ Ðthe€rights€of€first€refusal€to€these€tracts€that€he€assumed€some€significant€KRI€liabilities€to€obtainÐ øH Ðthem.€€The€assignment€from€Ô_ÔKRIÔ_Ô€to€the€plaintiffs€was€recorded€in€January,€1991.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€August,€1993,€the€individual€defendants€entered€into€a€sales€agency€contract€with€a€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_ÔÐ ¼  ÐCounty€realtor€to€sell€the€house€tract.€€The€defendants€made€no€effort€to€notify€anyone€in€the€chainÐ ¨ø Ðof€title€of€the€house€tract€option€that€they€had€listed€the€property€with€a€realtor.€€The€defendantsÐ ”ä Ðinitially€listed€the€house€tract€for€$2,500,000.€€The€realtor€placed€a€four„by„eight€foot€plywood€ð ðforÐ €Ð Ðsaleðð€sign€facing€the€Parkway,€the€main€street€running€through€Pigeon€Forge.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€March,€1995,€the€defendants€received€an€offer€from€Conoco,€Inc.,€to€purchase€the€houseÐ D!” Ðtract€for€$1,999,000.€€The€defendants€failed€to€notify€anyone€of€the€offer.€€This€offer€subsequentlyÐ 0"€  Ðlapsed.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€defendants€received€another€offer,€this€one€from€Pilot.€€This€latterÐ #l! Ðoffer€also€reflected€a€price€of€$1,999,000.€€The€defendants€accepted€the€offer€from€Pilot,€and€signedÐ $X" Ðan€ð ðOption€and€Purchase€Agreementðð€that€granted€Pilot€an€irrevocable€and€binding€option€toÐ ô$D # Ðpurchase€the€house€tract.€€Neither€before€nor€after€signing€this€agreement€did€the€defendants€makeÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âany€effort€to€contact€any€party€in€the€chain€of€title€of€the€right€of€first€refusal€option€on€the€houseÐ Ì&"% Ðtract.€€On€January€6,€1996,€the€defendants€closed€on€the€sale€of€the€house€tract€with€HGC,€Limited,Ð ° Ðas€the€assignee€of€Pilot,€and€title€passed€to€HGC.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAt€trial,€the€plaintiff€Johnny€Jess€Davis€provided€financial€documentation€and€testified€to€theÐ tÄ Ðfact€that€at€the€time€of€the€closing,€he€was€financially€able€and€willing€to€purchase€the€house€tract€forÐ `° Ðthe€amount€offered€by€Pilot.€€He€further€testified€that€he€would€have€purchased€the€tract€for€that€priceÐ L œ Ðas€he€felt€the€property€was€undervalued€at€$1,999,000.€€Mr.€Davis€was€permitted€to€testify€as€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðexpert€on€real€estate€in€the€subject€area,€and€he€testified€that€he€believed€that€in€January,€1996,€theÐ $ t Ðhouse€tract€had€a€fair€market€value€of€$3,500,000.€€The€defendantsðð€expert€testified€that€the€fairÐ  ` Ðmarket€value€of€the€property€was€$2,600,000.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð ü L  ÐÌ€à  àAs€a€part€of€the€closing€process,€Pilot€retained€a€title€company€to€research€and€insure€€the€titleÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€house€tract.€€The€search€reflected€the€ownership€interests€of€Bartlett€and€its€successor,€WaterÐ À  ÐSki€Shows.€€The€recorded€assignment€to€Water€Ski€Shows€led€to€agents€of€that€company.€Ð ¬ü  ÐApparently,€the€title€searcher€failed€to€discover€the€subsequent€assignments,€including€the€one€fromÐ ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔKRIÔ_Ô€to€the€plaintiffs.€€In€any€event,€the€agents€of€Water€Ski€Shows€executed€releases€by€individualsÐ „Ô  Ðwithout€ever€claiming€that€they€had€any€òòpresentóó€personal€ownership€interest€in€the€option€pertainingÐ pÀ Ðto€the€house€tract.€€With€this€defect€in€the€title€supposedly€cleared,€the€sale€to€HGC€proceeded.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€plaintiffs€were€the€rightful€owners€of€the€option€to€purchase€the€houseÐ 4„ Ðtract€and€that€their€interest€was€properly€recorded.€€At€the€first€trial,€the€defendantsðð€attorney€admittedÐ  p Ðin€opening€statement€that€the€defendants€had€committed€what€he€referred€to€as€a€ð ðtechnical€breachððÐ  \ Ðof€the€option€agreement;€however,€the€defendants€argued€that€the€plaintiffs€were€chargeable€withÐ øH Ðculpability€in€the€matter€so€as€to€prevent€them€from€recovering.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€respective€sides€pointed€to€different€background€facts€in€an€attempt€to€guide€the€courtÐ ¼  Ðto€different€conclusions€regarding€the€meaning€and€consequences€of€the€deficient€title€search.€€ThereÐ ¨ø Ðis€evidence€in€the€record€that€supports€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€that€the€defendants€allowed€the€sale€toÐ ”ä Ðgo€forward€without€informing€anyone€that€Water€Ski€Shows€had€assigned€its€interest€in€this€optionÐ €Ð Ðand€that€the€defendants€possessed€actual€knowledge€of€at€least€some€of€the€transfers€beyond€theÐ l¼ Ðoriginal€grantee€if€not€the€one€to€the€plaintiffs.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€repeatedly€made€reference€to€the€fact€that€upon€signing€the€agreement€withÐ 0"€  ÐPilot,€the€realty€company€that€listed€the€house€tract€placed€a€two„by„four€foot€ð ðsoldðð€sign€over€theÐ #l! Ðð ðfor€saleðð€sign€along€the€Parkway€on€the€house€tract.€€At€trial,€the€plaintiff€Johnny€Jess€DavisÐ $X" Ðtestified€that€in€the€ordinary€course€of€his€days,€he€drove€by€the€ð ðfor€saleðð€sign€daily€and€that€he€knewÐ ô$D # Ðthe€property€was€on€the€market.€€However,€he€denied€ever€seeing€a€ð ðsoldðð€sign€on€the€property.€€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendants€simply€responded€that€the€placement,€size,€and€length€of€time€the€sign€was€posted€refutesÐ Ì&"% ÐMr.€Davisðð€assertion€that€he€never€saw€it.€€The€defendants€contended€that€the€ð ðsoldðð€sign€providedÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€plaintiff€with€notice€of€the€pending€closing€(which€did€not€occur€until€seven€months€after€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðð ðsoldðð€sign€went€up)€and€used€this€evidence€to€support€the€ð ðdenialðð€defenses€set€up€in€their€answer.Ð )à$( ЀÌà  àIn€response€to€the€defendantsðð€claim€that€the€plaintiffs€were€culpable€in€this€breach,€theÐ œì Ðplaintiffs€assigned€fault€to€the€defendants.€€In€addition€to€constructive€notice,€the€plaintiffs€allegedÐ ˆØ Ðthat€the€defendants€had€actual€notice€of€the€plaintiffsðð€ownership€of€the€option.€€The€chancellorÐ tÄ Ðadmitted€into€evidence€the€sworn€deposition€testimony€of€the€deceased,€the€defendant€Johnnie€RexÐ `° ÐFlynn.€€This€testimony€addresses€Mr.€Flynnððs€understanding€of€the€status€of€the€1977€options€theÐ L œ Ðdefendants€originally€granted€to€Bartlett.€€In€his€deposition,€he€claimed€to€have€simply€forgottenÐ 8 ˆ Ðabout€the€option€to€Bartlett€on€the€house€tract.€€He€testified€that€he€knew€about€the€Bartlett€nameÐ $ t Ðchange,€but€beyond€that,€as€far€as€he€claimed€to€know,€the€house€tract€option€had€simply€ð ðvanished.ðð€Ð  ` ÐIn€addition,€since€Water€Ski€Shows€had€gone€out€of€business,€Mr.€Flynn€testified€that€he€figured€theÐ ü L  Ðoption€must€have€disappeared€with€that€company.€€He€testified€that€he€had€no€actual€notice€of€theÐ è 8  Ðassignment€to€KRI€or€to€the€plaintiffs.€€In€response,€the€plaintiffs€claim€that€the€defendants€had€actualÐ Ô$  Ðnotice€of€the€assignment€because€of€a€conversation€that€Mr.€Flynn€had€with€his€attorney.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À  ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.€€òòIssues€on€AppealóóÐ ˜è  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€contend€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€granting€the€defendants€aÐ pÀ Ðnew€trial.€€The€defendants€dispute€this€contention.€€In€addition,€they€contend€that€the€court€shouldÐ \¬ Ðhave€allowed€them€to€amend€their€answer€to€raise€the€defense€of€estoppel€and€should€have€thereafterÐ H˜ Ðdismissed€the€complaint.€€Each€of€the€parties€raises€issues€pertaining€to€the€second€trial.€€BecauseÐ 4„ Ðof€our€disposition€of€this€case,€we€do€not€find€it€necessary€to€reach€any€of€the€issues€pertaining€to€theÐ  p Ðsecond€trial.Ð  \ ÐÌà@JJìàV.€€Ô_ÔòòStandardÔ_Ô€of€ReviewóóˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€proceedings€below.€Ð ¼  ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€That€record€comes€to€us€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€asÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€trial€courtððs€factual€determinations€that€we€must€honor€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ ”ä Ðagainst€those€findings.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€We€review€questions€of€law€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€Ð €Ð Ðò òòòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Ô_ÔLoudonÔ_Ô€County€Bd.€of€Educ.ó óóó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).Ð l¼ ÐÌà@ƒƒ#ìàVI.€€òòDiscussionóóˆÐ D!” ÐÌà@ïïìàA.€€Motion€to€Amend€PleadingsˆÐ #l! ÐÌà  àThe€defendants€contend€that€there€was€proof€at€the€first€trial€that€supports€a€finding€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðplaintiffs€are€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€to€rely€upon€lack€of€written€notice€in€this€case.€€They€also€argue€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðplaintiffs,€by€their€actions,€impliedly€tried€the€issue€of€estoppel.Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àThe€defendantsðð€motion€to€amend€the€pleadings€to€conform€to€the€proof€relies€upon€Tenn.Ð ° Ðâ âR.€Civ.€P.€15.02,€which€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð œì ÐÌà  àà8 ` àWhen€issues€not€raised€by€the€pleadings€are€tried€by€express€orÐ tÄ Ðimplied€consent€of€the€parties,€they€shall€be€treated€in€all€respects€asÐ `° Ðif€they€had€been€raised€in€the€pleadings.€€Such€amendment€of€theÐ L œ Ðpleadings€as€may€be€necessary€to€cause€them€to€conform€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€and€to€raise€these€issues€may€be€made€upon€motion€of€anyÐ $ t Ðparty€at€any€time,€even€after€judgment;....Ð `` x` x ÐÌThey€rely€most€strongly€upon€the€case€of€ò òòòÔ_ÔZackÔ_Ô€Cheek€Builders,€Inc.€v.€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_Ôó óóó,€597€S.W.2d€888Ð è 8  Ð(Tenn.€1980),€in€which€the€Supreme€Court€expounded€upon€the€meaning€and€application€of€the€rule:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àGenerally€speaking,€trial€by€implied€consent€will€be€found€where€theÐ ¬ü  Ðparty€opposed€to€the€amendment€knew€or€should€reasonably€haveÐ ˜è  Ðknown€of€the€evidence€relating€to€the€new€issue,€did€not€object€to€thisÐ „Ô  Ðevidence,€and€was€not€prejudiced€thereby.€€A€succinct€statement€ofÐ pÀ Ðthis€rule€appears€in€ò òòòBrowning€Debenture€Holdersðð€Committee€v.Ð \¬ ÐÔ_ÔDasaÔ_Ô€Corpó óóó.,€560€F.2d€1078,€1086€(2d€Cir.€1977),€where€it€is€said€that:ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€a€motion€under€rule€15(b)€to€amend€the€complaintÐ  p Ðto€conform€to€the€proof,€the€most€important€questionÐ  \ Ðis€whether€the€new€issues€were€tried€by€the€partiesððÐ øH Ðexpress€or€implied€consent€and€whether€the€defendantÐ ä4 Ðð ðwould€be€prejudiced€by€the€implied€amendment,€i.e.,Ð Ð  Ðwhether€he€had€a€fair€opportunity€to€defend€andÐ ¼  Ðwhether€he€could€offer€any€additional€evidence€if€theÐ ¨ø Ðcase€were€to€be€retried€on€a€different€theory.ððÐ”ä¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àSee€also€ò òòòÔ_ÔSaalfrankÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔOððDanielÔ_Ôó óóó,€533€F.2d€325,€330€(6thòòóó€Cir.€1976).€Ð l¼ ÐThe€determination€of€whether€there€was€implied€consent€rests€in€theÐ X ¨ Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge,€whose€determination€can€be€reversedÐ D!” Ðonly€upon€a€finding€of€abuse.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔLaffeyÔ_Ô€v.€Northwest€Airlines€Incó óóó.,€567Ð 0"€  ÐF.2d€429,€478,€fn.€370€(D.C.€Cir.€1976).Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àBecause€of€proof€problems€at€trial,€the€commentators€warn€that:Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àImplied€consent€.€.€.is€much€more€difficult€to€establishÐ Ì&"% Ð(than€express€consent)€and€seems€to€depend€onÐ ¸'#& Ðwhether€the€parties€recognized€that€an€issue€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpresented€by€the€pleadings€entered€the€case€at€trial.€€AÐ )à$( Ðparty€who€knowingly€acquiesces€in€the€introduction€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence€relating€to€issues€that€are€beyond€theÐ h+¸&* Ðpleadings€is€in€no€position€to€contest€a€motion€toÐ ° Ðconform.€€Thus,€consent€generally€is€found€whenÐ œì Ðevidence€is€introduced€without€objection,€or€when€theÐ ˆØ Ðparty€opposing€the€motion€to€amend€himself€producedÐ tÄ Ðevidence€bearing€on€the€new€issue.€€(ParentheticalÐ `° Ðinsert€added.)€€ò òòòWright€&€Miller,€ó ósupraóó,€ðð€1493€at€462„Ð L œ Ð63.Ð8 ˆ¸ ¸  ÐÌò òòòIdó óóó.€at€890„91.€€òòSee€also€ò òVantage€Technologies,€LLC€v.€Crossó óóó,€17€S.W.3d€637,€649€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð  ` Ð1999)€(ð ðPresentation€of€evidence€that€is€relevant€to€both€a€pled€issue€and€a€non„pled€issue€does€notÐ ü L  Ðestablish€trial€of€the€non„pled€issue€by€implied€consent.ðð)Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€denying€the€defendantsðð€motion€to€amend€the€pleadings€to€conform€to€the€proof,€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourt€found€that€the€issue€of€estoppel€had€not€been€tried€by€implied€consent.€€We€agree.€€In€this€case,Ð ¬ü  Ðcounsel€for€the€defendants€òòexpresslyóó€stated€to€the€court€that€his€clients€were€not€relying€on€estoppel.€Ð ˜è  ÐThis€is€clear€throughout€the€transcript.€€One€illustration€of€this€is€found€in€the€following€exchangeÐ „Ô  Ðbetween€the€court€and€counsel€for€the€defendants€during€closing€argument:Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Now,€you€are€trying€to€say€that,€in€fact,€he€is€estoppelÐ H˜ Ð[sic]....Is€that€your€position?Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à[ATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS]:€No,€sir.€€I€am€saying€that€heÐ  \ Ðwas€given€notice.€€And€he€failed€to€act€upon€his€notice.€€The€contractÐ øH Ðrequires€that€upon€being€given€notice€that€you€have€got€an€affirmativeÐ ä4 Ðduty€to€Ô_Ô„„Ô_ÔÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àTHE€COURT:€Well,€do€you€think€ð!ð€Is€your€defense€estoppel€and€inÐ ¨ø Ðfact,€he€should€be€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€in€claiming€notice€as€defense€in€thisÐ ”ä Ðmatter?ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à[ATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS]:€I€am€claiming€ð!ð€specifically,Ð X ¨ Ðtechnically€estoppel?€€No,€I€am€claiming€that€he€had€notice,€that€theÐ D!” Ðnotice€was€given€under€the€terms€of€the€contract.Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà@ŽŽ%ìà*€€€€*€€€€*ˆÐ $X" ÐÌà  àà8 ` àTHE€COURT:...Now,€the€question€is€whether€or€not€you€areÐ à%0!$ Ðattempting€to€rely€on€estoppel€as€a€defense€to€this€claim.€€And€you€areÐ Ì&"% Ðsaying€that€you€are€not?и'#&` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à[ATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS]:€Not€in€the€pure,€technicalÐ )à$( Ðâ âsense€of€estoppel.€€What€I€am€saying€is€that€there€was€no€ð!ð€is€that€weÐ |*Ì%) Ðcomplied€with€all€the€requirements€of€the€notice€provision€under€theÐ ° Ðoption€agreement.€€We€did€what€we€had€to€do....Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌà  àIt€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€defendantsðð€theory€of€defense€was€twofold:€first,€that€theyÐ tÄ Ðsatisfied€the€notice€requirements€of€the€option€agreement€by€the€posting€of€the€ð ðfor€saleðð€sign€andÐ `° Ðthe€ð ðsoldðð€sign€at€a€location€near€where€the€defendants€had€to€have€seen€them;€and,€second,€that€theÐ L œ Ðplaintiffs,€upon€becoming€aware€of€the€ð ðfor€saleðð€sign€and€later€the€ð ðsoldðð€sign,€were€under€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðaffirmative€duty€to€come€forward€and€advise€the€defendants€of€the€assignment€of€the€optionÐ $ t Ðagreement€to€them€in€order€ð!ð€in€the€words€of€the€defendantsðð€counsel€ð!ð€to€ð ðmitigateðð€their€damages.€Ð  ` ÐThe€evidence€regarding€the€signs€came€into€proof€to€support€theories€of€the€defendants€that€wereÐ ü L  Ðtotally€unrelated€to€an€Ô_ÔunpledÔ_Ô€defense€of€estoppel.€€Picking€up€on€the€treatise€language€quoted€inÐ è 8  Ðò òòòÔ_ÔZackÔ_Ô€Cheek€Builders,€Incó óóó.,€the€plaintiffs€did€not€ð ðknowingly€acquiesce[]€in€the€introduction€ofÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€relating€to€issues€that€are€beyond€the€pleadings.ðð€€ò òòòÔ_ÔZackÔ_Ô€Cheek,ó óóó€597€S.W.2d€at€891.€€TheÐ À  Ðð ðsignðð€evidence€was€consistent€with€the€pleadings€and€consistent€with€the€non„estoppel€theories€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendantsðð€counsel.€€The€plaintiffs€had€no€reason€whatsoever€to€believe€that€this€evidence€wasÐ ˜è  Ðoffered€to€prove€estoppel.€€To€argue€otherwise€is€to€ignore€the€defendantsðð€clear€position€at€trial€ð!ðòòÐ „Ô  Ðthey€were€not€relying€on€the€affirmative€defense€of€estoppelóó.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€the€defendantsðð€motionÐ H˜ Ðto€amend€the€pleadings€to€conform€to€the€evidence.€€We€also€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€observationÐ 4„ Ðthat€to€allow€the€amendment€would€be€to€prejudice€the€plaintiffs€whose€counsel€represented€to€theÐ  p Ðcourt€that€had€the€issue€of€estoppel€been€properly€pled,€he€would€have€offered€new€evidence€to€rebutÐ  \ Ðthis€theory.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð øH ÐÌà@ûûìàB.€€Motion€for€New€TrialˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€main€focus€of€the€plaintiffsðð€appeal€is€on€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendantsðð€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€The€court€granted€a€new€trial€in€order€to€allow€the€defendantsÐ ”ä Ðto€amend€their€answer€to€assert€affirmative€defenses,€particularly€estoppel,€none€of€which,€asÐ €Ð Ðpreviously€noted,€were€raised€in€the€original€answer€or€tried€with€the€implied€consent€of€the€parties.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àGenerally€speaking,€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€court.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔEsstmanÔ_Ô€v.€Boydó óóó,€605€S.W.2d€237,€240€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€An€appellate€courtÐ 0"€  Ðshould€not€disturb€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€new€trial€unless€the€trial€court€has€abusedÐ #l! Ðits€discretion.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€ð ðA€trial€court€abuses€its€discretion€whenever€it€ððÔ_Ôapplie[sÔ_Ô]€an€incorrect€legalÐ $X" Ðstandard,€or€Ô_Ôreache[sÔ_Ô]€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€Ô_Ôcause[sÔ_Ô]€an€injustice€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðparty€complaining.ðððð€ò òòòÔ_ÔClinardÔ_Ô€v.€Blackwoodó óóó,€46€S.W.3d€177,€182€(Tenn.€2001)€quoting€ò òòòState€v.Ð à%0!$ ÐShirleyó óóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999).Ð Ì&"% ÐÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àIt€is€clear€that€a€finding€of€an€abuse€of€discretion€cannot€be€based€simply€upon€an€appellateÐ ° Ðcourtððs€determination€that€it€would€have€decided€the€question€differently.€€ò òòòÔ_ÔWhitonÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔWhitonÔ_Ôó óóó,€C/AÐ œì ÐNo.€E2000„00467„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€512,€at€*21€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Ô_ÔE.S.Ô_Ô,€filedÐ ˆØ ÐJuly€18,€2002).€€Rather,€this€standard€requires€that€we€determine€ð ðwhether€the€lower€courtððs€exerciseÐ tÄ Ðof€its€discretion€went€beyond€the€bounds€of€a€fair€exercise€of€discretion.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€òòSee€also€ò òState€v.Ð `° ÐÔ_ÔGillilandÔ_Ôó óóó,€22€S.W.3d€266,€273€(Tenn.€2000)€(ð ðAlthough€a€decision€made€under€this€standard€willÐ L œ Ðnot€be€lightly€reversed€on€appeal,€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€is€not€without€limits.ðð).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€defense€of€estoppel,€as€well€as€other€affirmative€defenses,€must€be€asserted€in€anÐ  ` Ðappropriate€pleading.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03.€€It€is€clear€that€a€ð ðparty€waives€all€defenses€andÐ ü L  Ðobjections€which€the€party€does€not€present€either€by€motion...,€or,...in€the€partyððs€answer€or€reply,...ðð€Ð è 8  ÐTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.08.€€òòSee€ò òRawlings€v.€John€Hancock€Mut.€Life€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€78€S.W.3d€291,€300Ð Ô$  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001)€(ð ðThe€failure€to€assert€a€claim€or€defense€in€a€timely€manner€is€deemed€aÐ À  Ðwaiver€of€the€right€to€rely€on€the€claim€or€defense€later€in€the€proceeding.ðð).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àPleadings€play€an€important€role€in€litigation.€€As€we€said€in€the€ò òòòRawlingsó óóó€case,Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€pleadings€required€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ \¬ Ðprovide€the€vehicle€for€identifying€and€refining€the€matters€at€issue€inÐ H˜ Ða€lawsuit.€€They€provide€the€parties€and€the€trial€court€with€notice€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€claims€and€defenses€involved€in€the€case.Ð p` x` x ÐÌò òòòIdó óóó.Ð øH Ðà  àÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€issues€were€framed€by€the€partiesðð€pleadings.€€It€was€the€theory€of€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendants€that€the€ð ðfor€saleðð€sign€and€the€ð ðsoldðð€placard€had€effectively€satisfied€the€requirementsÐ ¼  Ðof€notice€set€forth€in€the€option€agreement.€€It€was€further€their€theory€that€the€option€agreement€andÐ ¨ø Ðlaw€placed€an€obligation€on€the€plaintiffs€to€come€forward€and€advise€the€defendants€of€their€optionÐ ”ä Ðrights€ð!ð€of€which€the€defendants€had€constructive€notice€by€virtue€of€the€filing€of€same€in€the€officeÐ €Ð Ðof€the€Register€of€Deeds€ð!ð€in€order€to€ð ðmitigateðð€their€damages.€€While€neither€of€these€theories€areÐ l¼ Ðsupported€by€the€contract€or€any€law€to€which€we€have€been€cited,€these€were€the€defendantsððÐ X ¨ Ðtheories.€€As€previously€stated,€the€defense€of€estoppel€was€not€pled€and€òòwas€expressly€disavowedÐ D!” Ðas€a€defense€by€the€defendantsðð€counselóó.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€tried€this€case€on€the€issues€framed€by€the€parties.€€The€trial€consumed€twoÐ $X" Ðdays€and€is€represented€by€five€volumes€of€transcript.€€Each€side€had€a€full€and€fair€airing€of€theirÐ ô$D # Ðrespective€positions.€€We€find€and€hold€that€the€trial€court,€in€granting€a€new€trial,€ð ðwent€beyond€theÐ à%0!$ Ðbounds€of€a€fair€exercise€of€discretion.ðð€€ò òòòÔ_ÔWhitonÔ_Ôó óóó,€2000€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€512,€at€*21.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àIt€is€important€in€this€case€to€recognize€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€second€thoughtsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðregarding€the€propriety€of€its€judgment,€to€the€extent€the€judgment€was€a€response€to€òòthe€evidenceÐ )à$( Ðand€the€issues€established€by€the€pleadingsóó.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€the€trialÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourt€decided€that€it€had€made€the€wrong€decision.€€Rather,€it€is€clear€to€us€that€the€trial€court€simplyÐ h+¸&* Ðdecided€that€the€defendants€should€have€a€second€ð ðbite€at€the€appleðð€ð!ð€a€new€trial€based€upon€newÐ ° Ðtheories€of€defense.€€This€judgment€by€the€trial€court€runs€contrary€to€a€well„established€principle€setÐ œì Ðforth€in€the€case€of€ò òòòÔ_ÔChadwellÔ_Ô€v.€Knox€Countyó óóó,€980€S.W.2d€378€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998):Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà8 ` à...we€do€not€find€any€authority€which€authorizes€a€motion€to€alter€orÐ `° Ðamend€in€order€to€allow€a€party€to€present€[his€or]€her€case€under€aÐ L œ Ðnew€theory€when€the€facts€and€law€were€available€to€be€argued€at€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrial€prior€to€the€courtððs€original€decree.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌò òòòIdó óóó.€at€383,€quoting€ò òòòSpencer€v.€Hurd€Inv.€Properties,€Inc.ó óóó,€1991€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€275€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ü L  ÐApp.€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô,€filed€April€23,€1991).Ð è 8  ÐÌà@ìàC.€€Preponderance€of€EvidenceˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àMuch€of€the€defendantsðð€arguments€pertaining€to€the€facts€of€this€case€presupposes€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefenses€which€were€added€ð ðto€the€mixðð€before€the€second€trial€ð!ð€estoppel,€laches,€and€waiver€ð!ð€wereÐ „Ô  Ðproperly€presented€at€the€first€trial.€€They€were€not.€€Based€on€the€issues€that€were€properly€beforeÐ pÀ Ðthe€court€at€the€first€trial,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ \¬ Ðfindings€underpinning€its€judgment€as€to€liability€or€damages.€€Certainly,€we€cannot€place€the€trialÐ H˜ Ðcourt€in€error€with€respect€to€the€original€judgment€on€the€issues€now€raised€in€the€brief€that€pertainÐ 4„ Ðto€Ô_ÔunpledÔ_Ô€matters.Ð  p ÐÌà@SS"ìàVII.€€òòConclusionóóˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€awarding€the€plaintiffs€damages€of€$381,000€is€herebyÐ Ð  Ðvacated.€€The€trial€courtððs€original€judgment€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs€in€the€amount€of€$851,000€isÐ ¼  Ðhereby€reinstated.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendants,€Estate€of€Johnnie€Rex€Flynn€andÐ ¨ø ÐBarbara€Flynn.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€enforcement€of€the€reinstated€judgment€and€for€collectionÐ ”ä Ðof€costs€assessed€below,€all€pursuant€to€applicable€law.Ð €Ð ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________€Ð D!” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE