ÿWPCÏ 2# ÌUN× %% 0 (+w@S4“§ 0@¶ 0lö 0Db 0J¦ 0Tð 0^D 0h¢ 0r  0|| 0†ø 0~ 1u 0dƒ U>ç B)% BN D3k DCž AMá U*. X Æ^ S$›w AQÆc 0D) 0Dm D/± Bàýv~~vÓü˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á£ÂÃÄÓ€ÐÑB\J#3|xÑ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d d 'ÿÿdxd7Border 1dd*"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial üÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òOctober€31,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€their€brief,€the€Defendants€draw€a€distinction€between€the€competitive€bidding€processÏand€the€request€for€proposal€process€employed€here.€€In€our€view,€this€distinction€is€irrelevant.€ÏEnGeniusððs€claim€that€the€Defendants€were€obligated€to€enter€into€a€long„term€lease€forÏdevelopment€of€The€Pyramid€space€was€not€based€on€the€argument€that€EnGenius€submitted€theÏbest€proposal€for€such€development€but,€rather,€was€based€on€the€argument€that,€having€selectedÏEnGenius€as€the€successful€developer,€and€having€promised€to€prepare€an€agreement,€theÏDefendants€were€obligated€to€do€so.Ì IÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€òòò òRestatement€(Second)€of€Contractsó óóó€provides€that:ÌÌà8 àà àA€promise€which€the€promisor€should€reasonably€expect€to€induce€action€orÏforbearance€on€the€part€of€the€promisee€or€a€third€person€and€which€does€induceÏsuch€action€or€forbearance€is€binding€if€injustice€can€be€avoided€only€byÏenforcement€of€the€promise.€€The€remedy€granted€for€breach€may€be€limited€asÏjustice€requires.ÌÌò òòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Contractsó óóó€ðð90(1)€(1979).Ì ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝT.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101€(Supp.€1995).Ì*+,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd wÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Defendants€also€contend€that€any€contract€between€EnGenius€and€the€Defendants€wasÏnot€enforceable€because€the€contract€was€not€executed€by€the€appropriate€governmental€officials€asÏrequired€by€local€ordinances.€€Even€if€this€contention€subsequently€is€proven€to€be€correct,€thisÏwould€not€necessarily€preclude€EnGenius€from€recovering€from€the€Defendants€on€the€equitableÏgrounds€of€implied€contract€or€promissory€estoppel.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòCity€of€Lebanonv.€Baird›ó óóó,€756ÏS.W.2d€236,€242„45€(Tenn.€1988).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÌà@ à_______________________________________________________ÌÌà à)Ìò òENGENIUS€ENTERTAINMENT,€INC.ó óà à)à àShelby€County€Chancery€CourtÌò òand€PENCZNER€PRODUCTIONS,€INC.ó óà à)à àNo.€107488„3€R.D.Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€02A01„9704„CH„00078ÌÙ€*ÙßR€#%"A1-j|Òùy` Å `€€@ÿRßà à)Ìò òW.€W.€HERENTON,€in€his€official€ó óà à)Ìò òcapacity,€the€CITY€OF€MEMPHISó ó,à à)Ìò òTENNESSEE,€JIM€ROUT,€in€his€ó óà à)Ìò òofficial€capacity,€and€SHELBY€COUNTYó ó€)Ìò òTENNESSEEó ó.à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€D.€J.€Alissandratos,€Chancellor€ó óÌÌÌÌò òMary€l.€Wolffó ó,Ìò òThomas€J.€Walshó ó,Ìò òDouglas€A.€Blackó ó,ÌWOLFF€ARDIS,€P.C.,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiffs/Appellants.ÌÌÌò òMonice€Hagler€Tateó ó,€City€AttorneyÌò òPatti€C.€Bowlanó ó,€Assistant€City€AttorneyÌAttorneys€for€Defendants/Appellees€W.€W.€Herenton€and€the€City€of€Memphis,€Tennessee.ÌÌò òDonnie€E.€Wilsonó ó,€Shelby€County€AttorneyÌò òRobert€B.€Rolwingó ó,€Assistant€County€AttorneyÌAttorneys€for€Defendants/Appellees€Jim€Rout€and€Shelby€County,€Tennessee.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌà àò òFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌò òHIGHERS,€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òSUMMERS,€Sp.€J.ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àPlaintiffs€EnGenius€Entertainment,€Inc.,€and€Penczner€Productions,€Inc.Ï(collectively,€ð ðEnGeniusðð),€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€order€which€dismissed€their€complaint€againstÏDefendants/€Appellees€W.€W.€Herenton,€the€City€of€Memphis,€Jim€Rout,€and€Shelby€County.€€WeÏreverse€in€part€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€based€on€our€conclusion€that€EnGeniusððs€complaint,€whenÏconstrued€liberally€in€favor€of€EnGenius,€states€claims€against€the€Defendants€for€breach€of€impliedÏcontract€and€promissory€estoppel.ÌÌÔ&  Ôòòò òà@ àI.€€EnGeniusððs€Complaintó óóóÌÌà àEnGeniusððs€43„page€complaint€asserted€claims€for€breach€of€contract€(counts€I€andÔ'  ÔÏII),€breach€of€implied€contract€(count€III),€promissory€estoppel€(count€IV),€ð ðarbitrary€andÏcapricious€conductðð€(count€V),€and€injunctive€and€declaratory€relief€(count€VI).€€As€pertinent€to€thisÏappeal,€the€complaint€contained€the€following€allegations:ÌÌà àIn€1993,€the€Defendants€decided€to€seek€a€private€developer€to€design,€construct,Ïand€operate€improvements€to€121,000€square€feet€of€undeveloped€leasehold€space€in€The€Pyramid,Ïa€public€arena€in€downtown€Memphis.€€To€this€end,€the€Defendants€prepared€and€issued€a€RequestÏfor€Proposals€(ð ðRFPðð)€for€development€of€the€space.€€The€RFP€provided€that,€upon€selection€of€aÏdeveloper,€the€specific€rent€structure€would€be€negotiated€between€the€parties.€€The€RFP€alsoÏprovided€that€the€term€of€the€development€contract€would€be€negotiable€but€would€ð ðnot€exceed€20Ïyears;€a€10€year€initial€term€with€two€renewal€periods€of€5€years€each.ðð€€The€RFP€required€theÏselected€developer€to€spend€approximately€$10€million€on€certain€permanent€improvements€to€theÏleasehold€space,€including€an€inclined€elevator,€which€would€become€the€property€of€theÍDefendants€upon€installation.ÌÌà àIn€June€1993,€the€Defendants€sent€RFPððs€to€more€than€200€potential€developersÏacross€the€nation,€including€EnGenius.€€EnGenius,€along€with€two€other€potential€developers,Ïsubmitted€proposals€to€develop€the€leasehold€space€by€the€August30,€1993,€deadline.€€EnGeniusððsÏproposal€described€a€high„tech€family€entertainment€theme€park,€to€be€known€as€the€Island€EarthÏEcoCenter.€€At€the€request€of€the€Defendants,€EnGenius€formally€presented€its€proposal€to€theÏDefendantsðð€respective€mayors,€Herenton€and€then€Mayor€WilliamN.€Morris,€at€a€meeting€held€onÏOctober28,€1993.ÌÌà àBy€letter€dated€December22,€1993,€Mayors€Herenton€and€Morris€sent€EnGenius€aÏletter€informing€it€that€its€proposal€had€been€selected,€provided€that€EnGenius€could€prove€itsÏfinancial€capability€to€develop€the€project€in€accordance€with€its€proposal:ÌÌÓÓà8 àFollowing€presentations€for€development€of€the€leasehold€space€atÏThe€Pyramid,€our€administrations€have€carefully€weighed€theÏbenefits€of€each€proposal,€their€creativity,€and€most€of€all,€theirÏpotential€to€create€a€unique€tourist€attraction€for€Memphis€and€ShelbyÏCounty.ÌÌà8 àAs€a€result€of€this€review,€we€have€concluded€that€your€partnershipÏrepresents€our€best€opportunity€to€achieve€our€goals€for€this€space.€ÏBefore€making€a€final€selection,€we€will€give€your€partnership€60Ïdays€to€prove€your€financial€capability€to€develop€this€project€inÏaccordance€with€your€proposal.€€If€this€financial€benchmark€can€beÏreached,€we€shall€begin€immediately€thereafter€to€prepare€a€contractÏbetween€city€and€county€governments€and€your€company€for€theÏlease€and€development€of€this€space.ÌÌÓÓÌIn€January€1994,€the€Defendants€publicly€announced€that€EnGenius€had€been€chosen€to€developÏthe€leasehold€space€in€The€Pyramid.€€The€following€month,€EnGenius€representatives€attended€aÏmeeting€with€representatives€of€the€Defendants€at€which€EnGenius€demonstrated€its€financialÏcapability€to€complete€the€project.€€ÌÌà àDespite€EnGeniusððs€demonstration€of€its€financial€capability€to€develop€the€project,Ïthe€Defendants€refused€or€ignored€EnGeniusððs€repeated€requests€to€discuss€the€terms€of€a€leaseÏagreement.€€Instead,€in€April€1994,€Mayors€Herenton€and€Morris€decided€to€revive€an€entityÏknown€as€the€Public€Building€Authority€(ð ðPBAðð)€and€to€delegate€to€the€PBA€the€responsibility€forÏdeveloping€the€leasehold€space€in€ð ða€non„political,€less€bureaucratic€manner.ðð€€When€EnGeniusÏrepresentatives€expressed€concern€over€this€delay,€City€and€County€officials€assured€them€that€theÏDefendants€did€not€intend€to€reopen€the€RFP€process,€that€EnGeniusððs€plan€to€develop€TheÏPyramid€had€been€chosen,€and€that€EnGeniusððs€plan€was€the€only€plan€that€the€PBA€wouldÏconsider.€€Based€upon€these€representations,€EnGenius€expended€additional€time€and€effort€toÏmake€further€presentations€to€the€PBA.ÌÌà àEnGenius€representatives€first€met€with€the€chairman€of€the€PBA€in€July€1994.€€AtÏthat€time,€the€PBA€chairman€expressed€his€view€that€the€City€and€the€County,€and€not€EnGenius,Ïshould€fund€the€permanent€improvements€to€The€Pyramid.€€At€the€PBAððs€first€public€meeting€inÏAugust€1994,€EnGenius€again€made€a€formal€presentation€of€its€plan€to€develop€a€theme€park€inÏThe€Pyramid.€€In€September€1994,€Jim€Rout€was€elected€to€replace€WilliamN.€Morris€as€Mayor€ofÏShelby€County.€€EnGenius€representatives€also€attended€a€PBA€meeting€held€in€October€1994€atÏwhich€EnGenius€presented€the€details€of€its€plan€to€finance€the€development€project,€as€well€asÏtechnological€aspects€of€the€project.ÌÌà àDespite€their€representations€to€the€contrary,€during€the€fall€of€1994€City€andÏCounty€officials€began€discussions€with€other€developers€regarding€proposals€to€develop€TheÏPyramid€space.€€In€February€1995,€City€and€County€attorneys€recommended€rejecting€EnGeniusððsÏfinancing€plan,€ostensibly€because€the€plan€did€not€comply€with€the€RFPððs€requirement€€that€theÏdevelopment€plan€ð ðnot€require€any€investment€by€city€and€county€governments.ðð€€In€contrast€to€theÏattorneysðð€recommendation,€EnGenius€representatives€maintained€that€EnGeniusððs€financing€planÏdid€not€require€any€investment€by€the€City€or€the€County.€€Nonetheless,€at€a€March€1995€meeting,Íthe€PBA€adopted€a€resolution€rejecting€EnGeniusððs€development€plan€and€recommending€that€theÏCity€and€the€County€pursue€and€evaluate€alternative€proposals€for€development€of€the€leaseholdÏspace€in€The€Pyramid.€€Although€the€PBAððs€stated€reason€for€rejecting€EnGeniusððs€developmentÏplan€was€that€it€might€require€some€level€of€financial€involvement€of€the€City€and€the€County,€theÏPBAððs€recommendation€that€the€City€and€the€County€pursue€alternative€development€proposalsÏcalled€for€the€City€and€the€County€to€make€a€$10€million€capital€investment€in€The€Pyramid€byÏfunding€the€permanent€improvements€to€the€building.ÌÌà àIn€May€1995,€the€Defendants€formally€notified€EnGenius€that€they€wereÏconsidering€other€proposals€for€development€of€the€leasehold€space€and€that€EnGenius€would€beÏrequired€to€make€another€formal€presentation€in€order€to€receive€further€consideration€of€its€plan.€ÏThe€Defendants€represented€that€this€new€process€would€culminate€in€the€selection€of€a€developer.€€ÌÌà àOn€July10,€1995,€EnGenius€again€made€a€formal€presentation€to€the€MayorsÏregarding€its€plan€to€develop€a€family„oriented€indoor€theme€park€called€Island€Earth€EcoCenter.€€InÏaddition€to€presenting€detailed€plans€and€a€video€presentation€regarding€its€creative€concept,ÏEnGenius€presented€a€comprehensive€feasibility€study€of€the€project€along€with€a€draft€of€aÏproposed€lease€agreement.€€At€the€request€of€the€City€and€the€County,€EnGenius€later€made€anotherÏpresentation€at€which€it€provided€additional€information.ÌÌà àIn€October€1995,€the€Defendants€again€notified€EnGenius€that€it€had€been€selectedÏas€the€developer€of€The€Pyramid€space.€€In€addition€to€both€Mayorsðð€verbal€representations€thatÏEnGenius€had€been€selected€and€that€the€Defendants€would€proceed€to€negotiate€a€lease€withÏEnGenius,€EnGenius€received€the€following€letter€from€Mayor€Routððs€assistant:ÌÌÓÓà8 àI€am€pleased€that€as€a€result€of€Mayor€Herenton€and€Mayor€RoutððsÏdeliberations,€your€company€has€been€selected€as€the€vehicle€forÏdevelopment€of€The€Pyramidððs€ð ðattraction€space.ðð€€Your€innovativeÏconcept€and€the€strength€of€your€management€team€were€the€criticalÍfactors€in€this€decision€and€all€of€us€who€have€worked€on€thisÏproject€are€confident€that€Island€Earth€will€become€a€highlyÏsuccessful,€entertaining,€cutting€edge€attraction€for€our€community.€ÏBeginning€next€week,€we€look€forward€to€finalizing€the€contractualÏarrangement€between€your€company€and€the€City€and€CountyÏgovernments€so€that€we€can€begin€development€of€this€project€asÏsoon€as€possible.€€ÌÌÓÓÌBased€on€these€representations€by€the€Defendants,€EnGenius€began€to€spend€time€and€effortÏfinalizing€the€lease,€detailing€plans€for€construction,€and€negotiating€with€various€entities€to€provideÏthe€services€needed€to€complete€the€project.€€The€Defendants€encouraged€EnGenius€to€beginÏnegotiations€with€third„party€vendors€in€order€to€keep€the€project€on€a€ð ðfast€track.ððÌÌà àThe€Defendants,€meanwhile,€retained€outside€counsel€to€draft€the€lease€agreementÏwith€EnGenius.€€In€November€1995,€the€Defendantsðð€counsel€informed€EnGenius€that€theÏDefendants€were€demanding€a€$50,000€ð ðnon„refundable€feeðð€for€the€right€to€negotiate€with€theÏDefendants.€€Taking€the€position€that€it€already€had€acquired€the€right€to€enter€into€a€leaseÏagreement€with€the€Defendants€by€virtue€of€its€selection€as€the€developer€of€the€leasehold€space,ÏEnGenius€refused€to€pay€the€$50,000€fee.€€Around€this€time,€Mayor€Herenton€told€a€MemphisÏnewspaper,€ò òòòThe€Commercial€Appealó óóó,€that€he€had€concerns€about€awarding€a€long„term€lease€toÏa€private€developer€and€that€it€might€be€best€to€maintain€governmental€control€of€The€Pyramid.€€At€aÏmeeting€held€November30,€1995,€Mayor€Herenton€allegedly€advised€EnGenius€that€the€CityÏsimply€could€use€EnGeniusððs€ideas€and€documentation€to€build€the€project€without€compensatingÏEnGenius.€€ÌÌà àMayor€Herenton€subsequently€canceled€a€press€conference€which€had€beenÏscheduled€to€announce€EnGeniusððs€selection€as€developer€of€The€Pyramid€space.€€By€letter€datedÏDecember21,€1995,€Mayors€Herenton€and€Rout€terminated€any€further€negotiations€withÏEnGenius,€informing€it€that€ð ðthe€Request€for€Proposal€process...€has€come€to€a€conclusion.€€NoÏselection€of€a€developer€is€being€made.ðð€€This€lawsuit€followed.ÌÌÔ&  Ôòòò òà@ àII.€€EnGeniusððs€Breach€of€Contract€Claimsó óóóÌÌà àIn€support€of€its€breach€of€contract€claims,€EnGenius€made€the€followingÏassertions:Ô'  ÔÌÌÔ&  ÔÓÓà@ àò òCOUNT€Ió óÌÌò òà@ à(BREACH€OF€CONTRACT)ó óÌÌà8 àà à....Ô'  ÔÌÌà8 àà à170.à àThe€RFP€constituted€a€solicitation€of€offers€toÏdevelop€the€Leasehold€Space€in€The€Pyramid.ÌÌà8 àà à171.à àEnGenius€responded€to€the€RFP€with€an€offer€toÏdevelop€the€Island€Earth€EcoCenter€in€the€Leasehold€Space.€ÏEnGeniusððs€offer€included€not€only€the€development€of€family„oriented€high„tech€attractions,€but€also€the€development€ofÏimprovements€to€the€infrastructure€of€The€Pyramid.ÌÌà8 àà à172.à àPursuant€to€the€terms€of€EnGeniusððs€offer,€theÏestimated€cost€of€the€development,€approximately€$24.5€million,Ïwas€to€be€financed€solely€through€private€investment.ÌÌà8 àà à173.à àBy€letter€dated€December22,€1993,€the€City€andÏCounty€acting€through€their€authorized€representatives,€MayorÏHerenton€and€Mayor€Morris,€accepted€EnGeniusððs€offer,€forming€aÏbinding€agreement€pursuant€to€which€EnGenius€was€selected€as€theÏdeveloper€of€the€Leasehold€Space,€thereby€acquiring€the€exclusiveÏright€to€develop€and€operate€the€Island€Earth€EcoCenter€and€relatedÏattractions€in€the€Leasehold€Space€of€The€Pyramid.ÌÌà8 àà à174.à àThe€agreement€between€EnGenius€and€the€City€andÏCounty€was€subject€only€to€the€condition€subsequent€that€EnGeniusÏdemonstrate€its€financial€capability€to€develop€the€project.ÌÌà8 àà à175.à àEnGenius€satisfied€the€condition€subsequent€on€orÏabout€February28,€1994,€but€the€City€and€County,€acting€throughÏthe€PBA,€Mayor€Herenton€and€Mayor€Morris€refused€to€permitÏEnGenius€to€proceed€with€development€of€the€Leasehold€Space.ÌÌà8 àà à176.à àThe€aforementioned€acts€of€the€PBA,€MayorÏHerenton€and€Mayor€Morris€in€preventing€EnGenius€fromÏperforming€under€the€contract€were€arbitrary€and€capricious,€in€badÏfaith,€and€constituted€a€breach€of€the€City€and€Countyððs€agreement€toÍpermit€EnGenius€to€Ô&  Ôdevelop€the€Leasehold€Space€of€the€Pyramid.ÌÌà8 àà à....Ô'  ÔÌÌÔ&  Ôò òà@ àCOUNT€IIó óÌÌò òà@ à(BREACH€OF€CONTRACT)ó óÌÌà8 àà à....Ô'  ÔÌÌà8 àà à184.à àIn€or€about€March€1995,€the€City€and€CountyÏproposed€a€modification€of€its€agreement€with€EnGenius,€pursuantÏto€which€the€City€and€County€would€spend€up€to€$10€million€onÏimprovements€to€the€infrastructure€of€The€Pyramid,€with€EnGeniusÏfinancing€the€remaining€cost€of€the€development€of€the€Island€EarthÏEcoCenter€and€related€attractions€through€private€investment.ÌÌà8 àà à185.à àPursuant€to€the€terms€of€the€proposed€modification,ÏEnGenius€acquired€the€exclusive€rights€to€lease€the€Leasehold€SpaceÏand€to€develop€and€operate€the€Island€Earth€EcoCenter€and€relatedÏattractions€in€the€Leasehold€Space€of€The€Pyramid€for€a€period€of€20Ïyears.ÌÌà8 àà à186.à àEnGenius€agreed€to€this€proposed€modification€of€theÏcontract,€but€thereafter€the€City€and€County€breached€their€agreementÏby€refusing€to€lease€the€space€to€EnGenius.ÌÌà8 àà à187.à àThe€aforementioned€acts€of€the€City€and€County€andÏtheir€authorized€representatives€were€arbitrary€and€capricious,€andÏotherwise€constituted€a€breach€of€the€City€and€Countyððs€obligation€toÏdeal€with€EnGenius€fairly€and€in€good€faith€to€proceed€with€theÏdevelopment€of€the€Leasehold€Space€of€the€Pyramid.ÌÌÓÓÌà àOur€supreme€court€recently€set€forth€the€standard€to€be€applied€by€a€court€in€rulingÏon€a€motion€to€dismiss€a€complaint€pursuant€to€rule€12.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àA€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€whichÏrelief€can€be€granted€tests€the€sufficiency€of€the€complaint.€€TheÏbasis€for€the€motion€is€that€the€allegations€contained€in€theÏcomplaint,€considered€alone€and€taken€as€true,€are€insufficient€toÏstate€a€claim€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€motion€admits€the€truth€of€allÏrelevant€and€material€allegations,€but€asserts€that€such€facts€do€notÏconstitute€a€cause€of€action.€€In€resolving€the€issues€in€this€appeal,Ïwe€are€required€to€construe€the€complaint€liberally€in€the€plaintiffððsÍfavor€and€take€the€Ô&  Ôallegations€of€the€complaint€as€true.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòPursellv.€First€Am.€Natððl€Bankóóó ó,€937€S.W.2d€838,€840€(Tenn.€1996).Ô'  ÔÌÌà àApplying€the€foregoing€standard,€which€requires€us€to€accept€all€factual€allegationsÏas€true,€we€conclude€that€EnGeniusððs€complaint€fails€to€state€a€cause€of€action€for€breach€ofÏcontract.€€In€asserting€its€breach€of€contract€claims,€EnGenius€relies€on€the€existence€of€at€leastÏthree€documents€to€establish€the€existence€of€a€contract:€€the€RFP€issued€by€the€Defendants;ÏEnGeniusððs€response€to€the€RFP;€and€letters€from€the€Defendants€informing€EnGenius€that€it€hadÏbeen€selected€as€the€successful€developer.€€The€allegations€of€EnGeniusððs€complaint€and€theseÏdocuments,€however,€make€clear€that€the€parties€also€contemplated€the€subsequent€execution€of€aÏformal€contract€memorializing€the€partiesðð€agreement.€€The€ò òòòRestatement€(Second)€ofÏContractsó óóó€addresses€the€question€of€whether€a€contract€exists€at€this€stage€in€the€partiesððÏnegotiations:ÌÌÔ&  ÔÓÓà8 àò òðð27.à0 àExistence€of€Contract€Where€Written€Memorial€isÏà àà àà àà àContemplatedó óÌÌò òà8 àManifestations€of€assent€that€are€in€themselves€sufficientÏtoÔ'  Ô€conclude€a€contract€will€not€be€prevented€from€soÏoperating€by€the€fact€that€the€parties€also€manifest€anÏintention€to€prepare€and€adopt€a€written€memorialÏthereof;€but€the€circumstances€may€show€that€theÏagreements€are€preliminary€negotiations.ÌÌà8 àComment:ó óÌÌà8 àà àòòaóó.à àParties€who€plan€to€make€a€final€written€instrumentÏas€the€expression€of€their€contract€necessarily€discuss€the€proposedÏterms€of€the€contract€before€they€enter€into€it€and€often,€before€theÏfinal€writing€is€made,€agree€upon€all€the€terms€which€they€plan€toÏincorporate€therein.€€This€they€may€do€orally€or€by€exchange€ofÏseveral€writings.€€It€is€possible€thus€to€make€a€contract€the€terms€ofÏwhich€include€an€obligation€to€execute€subsequently€a€final€writingÏwhich€shall€contain€certain€provisions.€€If€parties€have€definitelyÏagreed€that€they€will€do€so,€and€that€the€final€writing€shall€containÏthese€provisions€and€no€others,€they€have€then€concluded€theÏcontract.ÌÌà8 àà àòòbóó.à àOn€the€other€hand,€if€either€party€knows€or€hasÏreason€to€know€that€the€other€party€regards€the€agreement€asÏincomplete€and€intends€that€no€obligation€shall€exist€until€other€termsÏare€assented€to€or€until€the€whole€has€been€reduced€to€anotherÏwritten€form,€the€preliminary€negotiations€and€agreements€do€notÏconstitute€a€Ô&  Ôcontract.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Contractsó óóó€ðð27€(1979).Ô'  ÔÌÌÔ&  Ôà àAs€explained€by€another€authority,ÌÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€quite€possible€for€parties€to€make€an€enforceable€contractÏbindingÔ'  Ô€them€to€prepare€and€execute€a€subsequent€final€agreement.€ÏIn€order€that€such€may€be€the€effect,€it€is€necessary€that€agreementÏshall€have€been€expressed€on€all€essential€terms€that€are€to€beÏincorporated€in€the€document.€€That€document€is€understood€to€be€aÏmere€memorial€of€the€agreement€already€reached.€€If€the€document€orÏcontract€that€the€parties€agree€to€make€is€to€contain€any€material€termÏthat€is€not€already€agreed€on,€no€contract€has€yet€been€made;€the€so„called€Ô&  Ôð ðcontract€to€make€a€contractðð€is€not€a€contract€at€all.ÌÌÓÓÌ1€Arthur€L.€Corbin€et€al.,€ò òòòCorbin€on€Contractsó óóó€ðð2.8,€at€133„34€(Rev.€ed.€1993)€(footnotesÏomitted).Ô'  ÔÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€foregoing€authorities,€we€hold€that€EnGeniusððs€complaintÏfails€to€state€a€cause€of€action€for€breach€of€contract.€€When€viewed€in€their€entirety,€the€documentsÏupon€which€EnGenius€relies€to€establish€the€existence€of€a€contract,€as€well€as€the€allegations€ofÏEnGeniusððs€complaint,€make€clear€(1)that€the€parties€intended€to€enter€into€a€written€contractÏmemorializing€their€agreement,€but€(2)that€the€parties€had€not€yet€reached€agreement€on€certainÏessential€terms€of€the€agreement.€€Specifically,€the€RFP€issued€by€the€Defendants€indicated€that€twoÏessential€terms€of€the€lease€agreement€would€be€negotiated€after€the€Defendants€selected€aÏdeveloper.€€Although€the€RFP€required€the€developer€to€propose€a€minimum€rent€and€percentage€ofÏgross€revenues€to€be€paid€the€Defendants,€the€RFP€also€provided€that€the€specific€rent€structureÏwould€be€negotiated€between€the€parties€upon€selection€of€a€developer.€€The€RFP€further€providedÍthat€the€term€of€the€lease€would€be€negotiable,€although€the€term€could€not€exceed€20€years.€€In€theÏabsence€of€agreement€as€to€these€two€terms,€we€conclude€that,€as€a€matter€of€law,€no€agreementÏexisted€between€the€parties€regarding€EnGeniusððs€development€and€lease€of€The€Pyramid€space.€Ïò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòArcadian€Phosphates,€Inc.v.€Arcadian€Corp.ó óóó,€884€F.2d€69,€74€(2d€Cir.€1989)Ï(holding€that€no€binding€contract€existed€where€documents€relied€upon€referred€to€possibility€thatÏnegotiations€might€fail€and€to€completion€of€binding€sales€agreement€at€some€future€date);€ò òòòVentureÏAssocs.€Corp.v.€Zenith€Data€Sys.€Corp.ó óóó,€987€F.2d€429,€432„33€(7th€Cir.€1993)Ï(affirming€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€breach€of€contract€claim€where€partiesðð€preliminary€agreementÏspecified€that€any€final€agreement€was€subject€to€preparation€and€execution€of€mutually€satisfactoryÏpurchase€agreement);€ò òòòViking€Broad.€Corp.v.€Snell€Publððg€Co.ó óóó,€497€N.W.2d€383,€386Ï(Neb.€1993)€(affirming€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€defendant€where€ð ðletter€of€intent€was€soÏcursory,€indefinite,€and€conditional€as€to€fail€as€a€matter€of€law€to€establish€an€objective€intent€onÏthe€part€of€the€parties€to€be€bound€therebyðð).€€At€most,€the€documents€evinced€an€agreementÏbetween€the€parties€to€negotiate€in€good€faith€to€reach€a€final€lease€agreement.× ƒ& ××  ×€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòArcadianÏPhosphatesó óóó,€884€F.2d€at€74;€ò òòòVenture€Assocs.€Corp.ó óóó,€987€F.2d€at€433;€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòArnoldÏPalmer€Golf€Co.v.€Fuqua€Indus.ó óóó,€541€F.2d€584,€588„89€(6th€Cir.€1976);€ò òòòUnitedÏMagazine€Co.v.€Prudential€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€877€F.€Supp.€1076,€1083€(S.D.€Ohio€1995).ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àòòò òIII.€€EnGeniusððs€Breach€of€Implied€Contract€Claimó óóóÌÌà àAlthough€EnGeniusððs€complaint€fails€to€state€a€claim€for€breach€of€an€expressÔ'  ÔÏcontract,€this€failure€does€not€preclude€EnGenius€from€asserting€a€cause€of€action€under€a€theory€ofÍimplied€contract.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòScandlynv.€McDill€Columbus€Corp.ó óóó,€895€S.W.2d€342,€345€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1994).€€While€an€express€contract€is€created€by€the€partiesðð€actual€assent€to€mutuallyÏacceptable€terms,€ð ða€contract€implied€in€law€is€imposed€by€operation€of€law,€without€regard€to€theÏassent€of€the€parties,€on€grounds€of€reason€and€justice.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(quoting€ò òòòContinental€MotelÏBrokers,€Inc.v.€Blankenshipó óóó,€739€F.2d€226,€232€(6th€Cir.€1984)).€€In€order€to€state€a€causeÏof€action€under€this€theory,€the€plaintiff€must€allege€the€following€elements:ÌÌÓÓà8 àA€benefit€conferred€upon€the€defendant€by€the€plaintiff,€appreciationÏby€the€defendant€of€such€benefit,€and€acceptance€of€such€benefitÏunder€such€circumstances€that€it€would€be€inequitable€for€him€toÏretain€the€benefit€without€payment€of€the€value€thereof.€€The€mostÏsignificant€requirement€for€a€recovery...€is€that€the€enrichment€toÏthe€defendant€be€unjust.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòHaynesv.€Daltonó óóó,€848€S.W.2d€664,€666€(Tenn.€App.€1992)€(quoting€ò òòòPaschallððs,€Inc.v.ÏDozieró óóó,€407€S.W.2d€150,€155€(Tenn.€1966)).ÌÌÔ&  Ôà àIn€support€of€this€theory,€EnGenius€made€the€following€allegations:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à192.à à...€€[T]he€City€and€County€issued€an€RFP€whichÔ'  ÔÏconstituted€a€solicitation€of€offers€to€develop€the€Leasehold€Space€inÏThe€Pyramid.ÌÌà8 àà à193.à àEnGenius€responded€to€the€RFP€with€an€offer€toÏdevelop€the€Island€Earth€EcoCenter€in€the€Leasehold€Space.€ÏEnGeniusððs€offer€included€not€only€the€development€of€family„oriented€high„tech€attractions,€but€also€the€development€ofÏimprovements€to€the€infrastructure€of€The€Pyramid.ÌÌà8 àà à194.à àEnGeniusððs€offer€constituted€a€bid€which€properlyÏresponded€to€the€RFP€and€which€complied€with€the€terms€of€theÏRFP,€thereby€giving€rise€to€an€implied€contract€between€the€parties.ÌÌà8 àà à195.à àPursuant€to€the€implied€contract€between€the€City€andÏCounty€and€EnGenius,€the€City€and€County€had€an€obligation€ofÏgood€faith€and€fair€dealing€which€required€them€to€respond€toÏEnGeniusðð€bid€fairly,€honestly€and€in€good€faith.ÌÌà8 àà à196.à àThe€City€and€County€did€not€respond€to€EnGeniusððÏbid€fairly,€honestly€and€in€good€faith,€based€on€the€facts€as€allegedÍherein€and€on€the€dealings€between€the€parties€generally.€€To€theÏcontrary,€during€and€after€EnGeniusððs€persistent€good„faith€effortsÏto€respond€to€the€RFP,€which€efforts€EnGenius€continued€to€makeÏdespite€additional€and€unreasonable€demands€and€delays€imposed€byÏthe€City€and€County,€the€City€and€County€treated€EnGeniusÏunfairly,€arbitrarily,€capriciously,€inconsistently,€and€in€bad€faith,Ïand€generally€with€respect€to€the€bid€process€acted€withoutÏreasonable€or€rational€basis.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€conclude€that€EnGeniusððs€complaint€alleges€sufficient€facts€to€state€a€claim€forÏbreach€of€an€implied€contract.€€Although€the€foregoing€allegations€do€not€specify€that€EnGeniusÏconferred€a€benefit€upon€the€Defendants€for€which€it€should€be€compensated,€the€factual€allegationsÏof€EnGeniusððs€complaint€support€such€a€theory.€€As€pointed€out€in€EnGeniusððs€reply€brief,€forÏexample,€the€complaint€alleges€that,€at€the€Defendantsðð€request,€EnGenius€caused€to€be€preparedÏand€presented€to€the€Defendants€a€feasibility€study€which€provided€the€Defendants€with€valuableÏinformation€concerning€EnGeniusððs€proposed€theme€park,€including€the€projected€number€ofÏvisitors€to€the€attraction€during€its€first€five€years€of€operation.€€EnGenius€also€provided€theÏDefendants€with€the€creative€concept€for€the€Island€Earth€EcoCenter,€a€concept€which,€according€toÏEnGeniusððs€allegations,€the€Defendants€threatened€to€appropriate€without€compensating€EnGenius.€€ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€a€factual€dispute€exists€as€to€whether€the€information€provided€byÏEnGenius€actually€conferred€a€benefit€upon€the€Defendants€and,€if€so,€the€value€of€such€benefit.€€InÏlight€of€the€allegations€contained€in€the€complaint,€however,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏgranting€the€Defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss€EnGeniusððs€claim€for€breach€of€implied€contract.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àòòò òIV.€€EnGeniusððs€Promissory€Estoppel€Claimó óóóÌÌà àWe€likewise€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€EnGeniusððs€promissoryÔ'  ÔÏestoppel€claim.€€As€with€EnGeniusððs€implied€contract€claim,€EnGeniusððs€claim€of€promissoryÏestoppel€is€not€dependent€upon€the€existence€of€an€express€contract€between€the€parties.€€ò òòòArcadianÏPhosphates,€Inc.v.€Arcadian€Corp.ó óóó,€884€F.2d€69,€73„74€(2d€Cir.€1989);€ò òòòUnitedÍMagazine€Co.v.€Prudential€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€877€F.€Supp.€1076,€1084„85€(S.D.€Ohio€1995);Ïò òòòQuake€Constr.,€Inc.v.€American€Airlinesó óóó,€565€N.E.2d€990,€1004€(Ill.€1990).€€Under€theÏtheory€of€promissory€estoppel,ÌÌÓÓà8 à[W]hen€one...€by€his€promise€induces€another€to€change€hisÏsituation,€a€repudiation€of€the€promise€would€amount€to€a€fraud.€ÏWhere€one€makes€a€promise€which€the€promisor€should€reasonablyÏexpect€to€induce€action€or€forbearance€of€a€definite€and€substantialÏcharacter€on€the€part€of€the€promisee,€and€where€such€promise€doesÏin€fact€induce€such€action€or€forbearance,€it€is€binding€if€injustice€canÏbe€avoided€only€by€enforcement€of€the€promise.ÌÌÌÓÓò òòòÌFoster&€Creighton€Co.v.€Wilson€Contracting€Co.ó óóó,€579€S.W.2d€422,€427€(Tenn.€App.Ï1978)€(citingÌ€17€C.J.S.€ò òòòContractsó óóó€ðð74));€ò òòòsee€alsoó óóó€ò òòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Contractsó óóó€ðð90(1)Ï(1979).× ƒ' ××  ×€€This€theory€of€recovery€is€sometimes€referred€to€as€ð ðdetrimental€relianceðð€because,€inÏaddition€to€showing€that€the€defendant€made€a€promise€upon€which€the€plaintiff€reasonably€relied,Ïthe€plaintiff€must€show€that€this€reliance€resulted€in€detriment€to€the€plaintiff.€€ò òòòFoster&ÏCreighton€Co.ó óóó,€579€S.W.2d€at€427;€ò òòòQuake€Constr.ó óóó,€565€N.E.2d€at€1004.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€EnGeniusððs€complaint€contained€adequate€allegations€to€support€aÏclaim€of€promissory€estoppel€because€the€complaint€alleged€that€the€Defendants€made€a€promiseÏwhich€they€reasonably€should€have€expected€to€induce€action€on€the€part€of€EnGenius;€that€theÏDefendantsðð€promise€did€induce€such€action;€and€that€EnGenius€relied€on€the€promise€to€itsÍdetriment.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€ò òòòUnited€Magazine€Co.ó óóó,€877€F.€Supp.€at€1084„85;€ò òòòQuake€Constr.ó óóó,€565ÏN.E.2d€at€1004„05.€€Specifically,€EnGenius€made€the€following€allegations:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à201.à à...€€[T]he€City€and€County€made€numerousÏrepresentations€and€promises€to€EnGenius€designed€to€induceÏEnGenius€to€incur€time€and€expense€responding€to€the€City€andÏCountyððs€repeated€requests€for€information€and€preparing€to€developÏthe€Leasehold€Space€of€The€Pyramid.ÌÌà8 àà à202.à à...€€[T]he€City€and€County€repeatedly€promised€andÏrepresented€that€they€would€enter€into€a€contract€with€a€privateÏdeveloper€for€construction€of€improvements€to€the€Leasehold€SpaceÏof€The€Pyramid,€and€further€repeatedly€represented€and€promised€toÏaward€that€contract€to€EnGenius.ÌÌà8 àà à203.à àIn€reliance€upon€the€City€and€CountyððsÏrepresentations€and€promises,€EnGenius€responded€to€the€City€andÏCountyððs€requests,€thereby€incurring€time€and€expenses€in€excess€ofÏ$1,000,000.ÌÌà8 àà à204.à àAfter€inducing€EnGenius€to€incur€substantial€timeÏand€expense€in€reliance€on€the€City€and€Countyððs€representationsÏand€promises,€and€after€twice€notifying€EnGenius€that€it€had€beenÏselected€to€develop€the€Leasehold€Space€of€The€Pyramid,€the€CityÏand€County€arbitrarily,€capriciously€and€in€bad€faith€refused€toÏpermit€EnGenius€to€develop€the€Island€Earth€EcoCenter€and€relatedÏattractions€in€the€Leasehold€Space€of€the€Pyramid.€€ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€Defendants€contend€that€EnGeniusððs€claims€based€on€implied€contract€andÏpromissory€estoppel€must€fail€because€the€RFP€issued€by€the€Defendants€contained€the€followingÏprovision:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThis€[RFP]€does€not€obligate€Shelby€County€Government€or€City€ofÏMemphis€Government€to€pay€any€costs€associated€with€theÏpreparation€and€submission€of€the€proposals€or€for€costs€associatedÏwith€interviews€or€presentations.€€ÌÌÓÓÌContrary€to€the€Defendantsðð€contention,€this€provision€did€not€require€the€trial€court€to€dismissÏEnGeniusððs€claims€for€implied€contract€and€promissory€estoppel.€€In€asserting€these€claims,ÏEnGenius€does€not€claim€that€the€Defendants€are€responsible€for€EnGeniusððs€costs€by€virtue€of€theÍDefendantsðð€issuance€of€the€RFP.€€Rather,€as€we€view€the€pleadings,€EnGeniusððs€claim€forÏcompensation€is€based€on€the€allegation€that€the€Defendants,€having€concluded€the€RFP€process€byÏselecting€EnGenius€as€the€successful€developer,€then€induced€EnGenius€to€incur€additional€expenseÏand€effort€at€the€Defendantsðð€request€by€representing€that€they€would€soon€be€entering€into€a€long„term€lease€with€EnGenius€for€development€of€The€Pyramid€space.€€We€also€reject€the€DefendantsððÏcontention€that€the€statute€of€frauds× ƒ( ××  ×€bars€EnGeniusððs€implied€contract€and€promissory€estoppelÏactions.€€Although€the€statute€of€frauds€may€prevent€the€Defendants€from€seeking€enforcement€ofÏan€alleged€oral€agreement€under€these€equitable€doctrines,€the€statute€does€not€preclude€EnGeniusÏfrom€recovering€damages€for€unjust€enrichment€or€detrimental€reliance.€€òòò òSee€Steelman€v.€FordÏMotor€Credit€Co.óóó ó,€911€S.W.2d€720,€723€(Tenn.€App.€1995);€òòò òCummins€Cumberland,€Inc.Ïv.€Dominion€Bankóóó ó,€No.€01A01„9008„CH„00287,€1991€WL€17176,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Feb.Ï15,€1991).× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌÓÓÔ&  Ôà@ àòòò òV.€€EnGeniusððs€Claims€for€ð ðArbitrary€and€Capricious€Conductðð€andó óóóÌà@ àòòò òInjunctive€and€Declaratory€Reliefó óóóÌÌÓÓÌà àAs€for€EnGeniusððs€remaining€claims,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€ofÔ'  ÔÏEnGeniusððs€claim€for€injunctive€and€declaratory€relief,€inasmuch€as€EnGenius€has€not€raisedÏdismissal€of€this€claim€as€an€issue€on€appeal.€€We€also€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€ofÏEnGeniusððs€claim€for€ð ðarbitrary€and€capricious€conduct.ðð€€While€the€authorities€cited€by€EnGeniusÏindicate€that€a€governmental€entityððs€actions€may€be€challenged€on€the€ground€that€such€actions€areÏarbitrary€and€capricious,€these€authorities€do€not€support€the€existence€of€an€independent€cause€ofÍaction€for€damages€based€on€the€Defendantsðð€ð ðarbitrary€and€capricious€conduct.ðð€€ò òòòSeeó óóóÏò òòòMetropolitan€Air€Research€Testing€Auth.v.€Metropolitan€Govððtó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€611,Ï619€(Tenn.€App.€1992);€ò òòòComputer€Shoppev.€Stateó óóó,€780€S.W.2d€729,€737€(Tenn.€App.Ï1989).ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àòòò òVI.€€Conclusionó óóóÌÌà àThat€portion€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€dismissing€EnGeniusððs€claims€for€breachÏof€implied€contract€andÔ'  Ô€promissory€estoppel€is€reversed€and€this€cause€remanded€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€isÏaffirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€one„half€to€EnGenius€and€one„half€to€the€Defendants,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌSUMMERS,€Sp.€J.€(Concurs)