WPCQ #7W踇!!T 8sJ8ot:==KKxG;dZ!Q 0h 0RR 0R 0R 0RH 0R 09 0%! 02" 0" 0:# 0V)$ 0\$ 0$ 0% 0' B*)b) D3) 0) 0+ 06, 0, 0:- 0h. 0Fk. B. B.U6.U<!/U*]/N//(33 0U3 0R4 055 05 06 0r7 0%8 08 0y9 0: 0: 0; 0c< 0= 0= 0X> 0> 0? 0@ 0A 0A 0B B@C 0]C 0D D5D D-D 0K E 0XE ASEOF 0G 0DG AG 0H 0FI 0I 0pJ D/J D/)K 1eXK 0NKKKK L 1uVQ 72Qn/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt U\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0 1 R$      1    _FourSeasonsallegesthatBeersfailuretoreduceitsdecisiontowritinginatimelymannerconstituteda  violationofArticle14(b)oftheSubcontract.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   Tenn.Civ.App S.W.WoolineSKANSKACatalano COAretainage P.J. W.S.Highers Peaymanager[sJurisPettitAm.JurconclusoryGulledgeestoppedWhitfieldCentreAbsar Syspretermitted  R$      2    _Rule12.02providesinpertinentpart:  Ѐ8  If,onamotionassertingthedefensenumbered(6)todismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhich 8 reliefcanbegranted,mattersoutsidethepleadingarepresentedtoandnotexcludedbythecourt,the L motionshallbetreatedasoneforsummaryjudgmentanddisposedofasprovidedinRule56,andall  partiesshallbegivenreasonableopportunitytopresentallmaterialmadepertinenttosuchamotion  byRule56.H    Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02.0.Normal S =j =j<:Definition T<:Definition L , |(` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACPFHKXMOR`TVYh[]  |(` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACPFHKXMOR`TVYh[]`86Definition(&H1 S =j&   5Q:\  `$Times NewRomanQ  XXX 1[Q:\  `$Times NewRomanQ  (&H2 S =j&   FQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ XXX 1[Q:\  `$Times NewRomanQ(&H3 S =j&   1[Q:\  `$Times NewRomanQ XXX 1[Q:\  `$Times NewRomanQ(&H4 S =j&  XXX =jQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ =jQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQXXX(&H5 S =j&   Q:\  `$Times NewRomanQ XXX 1[Q:\  `$Times NewRomanQ(&H6 S =j&   ŸQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ XXX 1[Q:\  `$Times NewRomanQ20Address86Blockquote S =j , , |(` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACPFHKXMOR`TVYh[]   |(` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACPFHKXMOR`TVYh[]` =j,*CITE,dj*CODEK9<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4gm2Keyboard K9<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ<:Preformatted|( ,Kk (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACPFHKXMOR`TVYh[]`pbd gK9<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ|( ,Kk (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACPFHKXMOR`TVYh[]`pbd g<:zBottom of ?/* **?  B  ?;%2A`Arial?/Z  H/  XXXQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ&0 d d- -----'dxd<:zTop of ForA/-***A  B  ?;%2A`Arial?/Z  H/  XXXQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ0dj.SampleXXXK9<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ0.Strong 8dj6TypewriterK9<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXQ:\  `$Times NewRomanQ42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  + +dX Xd<6X9`(Courier New\  `$Times NewRoman%2A`Arial D R$      3    _Theevidenceshowedthat,in1995,thepartieshadenteredintoavalidrentalagreementforservices.   MechanicsLaundryServ. ,98S.W.2dat153.ThatcontractwasscheduledtoexpireinFebruary1998. Id. at154.In t September1997,duringthetimeperiodinwhichtheoriginalcontractwasineffect,thestoremanageratoneofthe : defendantsbusinesslocationssignedaseparatecontractforservices. Id. at154.In1998,theplaintifftoldthedefendant N thatitwouldnotberenewingthe1995contract.Atthattime,theplaintifftoldthedefendantthatitwouldholdthe  companytothetermsofthecontractsignedin1997byitsstoremanager.Thus,thebreachofcontractactionfiledby  theplaintiffwasbasedonthecontractsignedin1997bythestoremanager. Id. at157.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (|G2$ !.8 %dXXd8         0  (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,   d(55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (|3A:$ !.8 %dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A:$ !.8 %dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   -)1dxd-)2dxdIJKLMNOP 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$ A R$      4    _BeersarguesthatthenineteenpartialreleasessubmittedbyFourSeasons,executedpriortotheReleaseat  issue,showthatFourSeasonsknew,orshouldhaveknown,thatareleasewouldberequiredinexchangeforanypayment t fromBeers.Therefore,Beersargues,FourSeasonsimpliedlyauthorizedWilliamstoexecutetheReleasebysending 8 himtopickupthecheck.However,evenifFourSeasonsshouldhaveexpectedthatWilliamswouldhavebeenpresented L withsometypeofreleaseinexchangeforthepayment,itwouldhaveexpectedthereleasetobetypicaloftheother  nineteen,thatispartialreleaseswhichwerelimitedinscope.TheReleaseatissueinthislawsuit,however,wasafinal  release,applyingto allclaims,causesofaction,suits,accounts,debts,anddemandsarisingoutoftheProject.Thus, H  thepracticeofrequiringapartialreleaseinexchangeforapartialpaymentoffundsdoesnotsupportBeersargument  \ thatFourSeasonstookanyactiontocloakWilliamswithapparentauthoritytosigntheReleaseatissue.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)mi) !.8 %dd8     _   %8CXXdd8  @ t %INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE# %t #Ԉ &   AUGUST6,2003Session L XCX % # %XXC#FOURSEASONSHEATING&AIRCONDITIONING,INC. J v.  ^ BEERSSKANSKA,INC. " r XCX % @@ AnAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforMontgomeryCounty " r @@No.MCCHCVCD0203CarolAnnCatalano,Chancellor ^  @@*AV) ` dE<` A 6  @@TTNo.M200202783_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember23,_2003_ 1  AV) ` dE<` A      Thisisabreachofcontractcase.Thedefendantgeneralcontractorwashiredtoconstructabuilding  onastatecollegecampus.Thecontractorhiredtheplaintiffsubcontractortoperformsubstantial  workonthejob.Duringthecourseoftheproject,thesubcontractorsoughtadditionallaborcosts  incurredintheproject.Thisissuewasnotresolved.Later,thesubcontractorsoughtfromthe x contractortheretainagekeptbythecontractor.Whenthecheckwasready,thesubcontractorsent d itsprojectmanagertoretrieveit.Inordertogetthecheck,theprojectmanagerwasrequiredbythe P contractortosignadocumentreleasingallclaimsbetweenthecontractorandthesubcontractor. < Later,thesubcontractorfiledthislawsuit,seekingtheadditionallaborcosts.Thecontractorfiled (x amotiontodismiss,arguingthat,bytheprojectmanagerssignatureontherelease,thesubcontractor d waiveditsclaimtotheadditionallaborcosts.Thesubcontractorarguedthatitsprojectmanagerdid P nothavetheauthoritytobindthecompanytotherelease.Afterahearing,thetrialcourtdismissed < thesubcontractorscomplaint.Thesubcontractornowappeals.Wereverse,findingthatthe ( evidencewasinsufficienttoestablishasamatteroflawthattheprojectmanagerhadactualor  apparentauthoritytobindthesubcontractorortoestablishasamatteroflawthatthesubcontractor  ratifiedthereleasesignedbytheprojectmanager.    Tenn.R.Civ.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtis t"! ReversedandRemanded  `#"   # %XC#XCX. %HollyM.Kirby,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S., 8% $ andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined. $&t!% DavidK.TaylorandJenniferL.Ditty,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,FourSeasonsHeating 'L#' andAirConditioning,Inc. (8$( RichardM.SmithandH.BrentPatrick,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,BeersSkanska,Inc. *&*    -(- _OPINION # %XXC #XCX %  # %XXC*#XCX %    InJuly1998,Respondent/AppelleeBeersSkanska,Inc.( Beers),formerlyknownasPatten  BeersConstructors,Inc.( Beers),enteredintoacontractwiththeStateofTennesseetobethe t generalcontractorfortheconstructionofanewsciencebuildingatAustinPeayStateUniversity ` ( Project).OnSeptember24,1998,Beersenteredintoasubcontractforservices( Subcontract) L  withPetitioner/AppellantFourSeasonsHeatingandAirConditioning,Inc.( FourSeasons),a 8  corporationwhollyownedbyWayneGulledge( Gulledge)andhiswife,SandraGulledge( Mrs. $ t Gulledge).  `   BytheendoftheProject,thetotalcompensationdueFourSeasonsunderthecontractwith  8  Beersexceeded$6million.ThroughoutthecourseoftheProject,Beersmadepartial# %XXC#XCX %payments $  baseduponthepayapplicationssubmittedbyFourSeasons.Aftereachpartialpaymentwasmade,   Mrs.Gulledgesignedapartialreleaseandwaiverindicatingthatthepaymenthadbeenreceivedby   FourSeasons.     OnDecember2,1999,inthemiddleoftheProject,FourSeasonsmadeaformaldemand p uponBeersforanadditionalpaymentof$177,991foradditionallaborcostsincurredbyFour \ SeasonsundertheSubcontract( LaborClaim).Theadditionallaborcostswerebasedonthe H differencebetweentheestimateofanticipatedlaborcostsusedbyFourSeasonstocalculateitsbid 4 andthestatewageratesthatappliedtotheProject.ThoughFourSeasonscontinuedtoworkonthe  p project,thepartiescontinuedtonegotiateoverthedisputeddiscrepancy.Thelastcommunication  \ intherecordbetweenthepartiesregardingthelaborcostissueisaFebruary6,2001letterfrom H GulledgetoBeers,requestingtheadditionalpaymentbyFebruary15,2001.Beersdidnotrespond 4 inwritingtothisletter.BeersdidnotpaytheLaborClaim.ShortlybeforeFourSeasonsfiledits   lawsuitinthiscase,BeersfinallyreduceditsdenialoftheLaborClaimtowriting.  #  1      # %XXC#XCX %     OnDecember2,2001,FourSeasonssubcontractor,MechanicalAutomatedControl  Systems,Inc.( MAC),filedalawsuitagainstbothFourSeasonsandBeersandtheirbonding  companies( MACLawsuit),assertingclaimsarisingoutoftheProject.Itisundisputedthatthe l claimsintheMACLawsuitareunrelatedtotheLaborClaim. X    Aswithmanyconstructioncontracts,theSubcontractatissuebetweenBeersandFour 0"  SeasonspermittedBeerstowithholdfromFourSeasonsportionsoftheSubcontractfundsuntilthe #l! endofthework,commonlyreferredtoasa Retainage.BeforeandafterthefilingoftheMAC $X" Lawsuit,GulledgerequestedthatBeerspayall,oratleastsomeportion,oftheRetainagetoFour $D # Seasons.SomeoftheundisputedRetainagefundswerewithheldbyBeersfromFourSeasons %0!$  becauseoftheMACLawsuit. &"%   InFebruary2002,whiletheMAClawsuitwasstillpending,Gulledgeasked FourSeasons   projectmanager ,WendellWilliams( Williams),tocallanemployeeofBeers,BrianCarter,and  askaboutpaymentofanyundisputedfunds.OnFebruary21,2002,BeerscalledFourSeasons  officeandtoldFourSeasonsthatacheckintheamountof$43,249.58wasreadytobepickedup. t ThischeckwasnotspecifiedaspaymentforanyportionoftheLaborClaim.Onthatday,Gulledge ` sentWilliamstocollectthepaymentfromCarter.WhenWilliamsarrivedtopickupthecheck, L  Carterhadhimsignadocumententitled FinalReleaseofLienWaiver.TheReleasestatesthat 8  itisawaiverandrelinquishmentofallofFourSeasonsclaimsagainstBeersandothersrelatingto $ t  causesofaction,suits,accounts,debts,anddemands,whetherknownorunknown...arisingout  ` oforrelatedto...theProject.WilliamswasnotgivenacopyoftheRelease,andGulledgeclaims  L  thathedidnotfindoutabouttheexistenceoftheReleaseuntillater,throughcounselinthislawsuit.  8  Ѐ  OnMay28,2002,FourSeasonsfiledalawsuitagainstBeersinthecourtbelow,seeking   paymentfortheLaborClaimunderabreachofcontracttheory.OnJune24,2002,Beersfiledan   answertothecomplaintandamotiontodismiss,denyingliabilityandasserting,amongotherthings,   thattheReleasesignedbyWilliamsconstitutedareleaseofalltheclaimsofFourSeasonsagainst   Beers,includingtheLaborClaim.Alongwiththeanswerandthemotiontodismiss,Beersfileda p memorandumoflawandattachedtoitcopiesofthegeneralcontractagreement,theSubcontract, \ andtheRelease. H   OnOctober7,2002,FourSeasonsfiledaresponsetothemotiontodismiss,maintainingthat  p materialissuesoffactexistedconcerningtheexecutionoftheReleaseandwhetheritappliedtothe  \ LaborClaim.FourSeasonsattachedtoitsresponseaffidavitsbyGulledgeandWilliams,asserting H thatWilliamswasnotgivenauthoritytosigntheReleaseonbehalfofFourSeasons.# %XXC#XCX %FourSeasons 4 notedthatMrs.Gulledgewasthesecretarytreasurerofthecorporation,andthat,duringthecourse   oftheentireProject,shehadbeensigningthepartialreleasestoobtainpaymentfromBeers.Four   SeasonsalsoarguedinitsresponsethatWilliamshadnoapparentauthoritytosigntheRelease,  becausetherewasnoevidencethattheprincipalsofthecompany,theGulledges,evertookany  actiontocloakhimwithsuchauthority.Finally,FourSeasonsarguedthatitdidnotratifythe  ReleasesignedbyWilliams,becauseitsprincipalstooknoactiontoconfirmthetermsofthe l Release.Atminimum,FourSeasonsargues,therewasagenuineissueofmaterialfactastothe X  applicationoftheReleasetothislitigation. D!   OnOctober11,2002,Beersfiledareply,attachingtheaffidavitofSteveMorgan #l! ( Morgan),aseniorprojectmanagerforBeerswithresponsibilityforensuringthatprojectcreditors $X" arepaidandthatappropriatereleasedocumentationisexecuted.# %XXC(#XCX %Inhisaffidavit,Morganstatedthat $D #  [i]tisnotunusualintheconstructionindustryforaprojectmanagertopickupcontractpayments %0!$ andexecuteanyrelateddocumentation.Healsostatedthat,onotherprojectsBeersworkedonwith &"% FourSeasons,unrelatedtotheProjectatissueinthiscase, projectmanagersforFourSeasonshave '#& collectedcontractbalancesandexecutedreleasedocumentationonmorethanoneoccasion. (#' Morganfurtherassertedthat,atallpertinenttimes, representativesofBeerswereoftheopinionthat )$( WendellWilliamspossessedthenecessaryauthoritytosecurepaymentandexecuterelease |*%) documentation. h+&* # %XXC-#XCX %  OnOctober14,2002,thetrialcourtheardargumentsonthemotiontodismiss.OnOctober  18,2002,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdismissingFourSeasonsclaimagainstBeers.Theorder  didnotincludeanexplanationofthetrialcourtsreasoning.Fromthatorder,FourSeasonsnow  appeals. t   # %XXC%1#XCX %Becausethetrialcourtrelieduponmattersoutsidetheoriginalpleadingswhenitgranted L  Beersmotiontodismiss,wewilltreatBeersmotionasamotionforsummaryjudgment,in 8  accordancewithRule12.02oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure. #  2      ׀ SeeKuv.State ,104 $ t S.W.3d870,873(Tenn.Ct.App.2002).Thestandardforreviewingagrantofsummaryjudgment  ` iswellestablished.Agrantofsummaryjudgmentisrevieweddenovoontherecord,withno  L  presumptionofcorrectnessaffordedtothetrialcourtsdetermination. Staplesv.CBL&Assocs.,  8  Inc. ,15S.W.3d83,88(Tenn.2000). Our# %XXC2#XCX %taskisconfinedtoreviewingtherecordtodetermine $  whethertherequirementsof[TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure]56havebeenmet. Id. Under   Rule56.04oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,summaryjudgmentisappropriatewherethere   isnogenuineissueofmaterialfacttobedecided,andthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentas   amatteroflawontheundisputedfacts. Id. (citing Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993);   # %XXC6#XCX % Andersonv.StandardRegisterCo. ,857S.W.2d555,559(Tenn.1993)).Theburdenisonthe p movingpartytoshowthatitsmotionsatisfiestheserequirements. Id. Oncethatburdenissatisfied, \ theburdenshiftstothenonmovingpartytosetforthspecificfactsestablishingtheexistenceof H disputed,materialfactswhichmustberesolvedbythetrieroffact. Id. (citing Byrd ,847S.W.2dat 4 215).# %XXC"9#XCX %Ԁ  p   Inreviewingevidenceinthesummaryjudgmentcontext, [c]ourtsmustviewtheevidence H inthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmustalsodrawallreasonableinferencesin 4 thenonmovingpartysfavor. Ku ,104S.W.3dat874.Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewhen   boththefactsandtheinferencestobedrawnfromthefactspermitareasonablepersontoreachonly   oneconclusion. Id. Wenowreviewthetrialcourtsdeterminationinlightofthisstandard.    Onappeal,FourSeasonsmakesthesameargumentsasitmadeinthetrialcourt.Four  Seasonsassertsthattheevidenceitsubmittedtothetrialcourtcreatedgenuineissuesofmaterialfact l asto(1)whetherWilliamshadactualorapparentauthoritytobindFourSeasonstothetermsofthe X  Release;(2)whetherFourSeasonsratifiedtheReleasesignedbyWilliams;and(3)whetherthe D! ReleaseembodiesthepartiesintentiontoreleasetheLaborClaimasdescribedinthepetition.In 0"  response,Beersarguesthat,whiletheremaybeadisputeaboutwhetherWilliamshadactual #l! authoritytobindFourSeasonstothetermsoftheRelease,theundisputedevidenceshowsthathe  atleasthadtheapparentauthoritytodoso.Inthealternative,Beersarguesthat,FourSeasons  acceptanceofthepaymentconstitutedratificationoftheRelease.Overall,Beersassertsthatthe  ReleaseclearlyencompassestheLaborClaimdisputeand,therefore,operatestobarFourSeasons t fromfilingalawsuittorecoverthosepayments. `   ThereislittleevidenceintherecordshowingthatWilliamshadactualauthoritytosignthe 8  Releaseatissue,andBeersasmuchasconcedesthisonappeal.Thecloserquestioniswhether $ t WilliamshadapparentauthoritytosigntheReleaseandtobindFourSeasonstoitsterms. Itiswell  ` settledthatapparentauthoritymustbeestablishedthroughtheactsoftheprincipalratherthanthose  L  oftheagent. MechanicsLaundryServ.v.AutoGlassCo.ofMemphis ,98S.W.3d151,157(Tenn.  8  Ct.App.2002).TheSupremeCourtofTennesseehasdiscussedapparentauthority: $  8  Theapparentpowerofanagentistobedeterminedbytheactsoftheprincipaland   notbytheactsoftheagent;aprincipalisresponsiblefortheactsofanagentwithin   hisapparentauthorityonlywheretheprincipalhimselfbyhisactsorconducthas   clothedtheagentwiththeappearanceofauthority,andnotwheretheagentsown p conducthascreatedtheapparentauthority.Theliabilityoftheprincipalis \ determinedinanyparticularcase,however,notmerelybywhatwastheapparent H authorityoftheagent,butbywhatauthoritythethirdperson,exercisingreasonable 4 careandprudence,wasjustifiedinbelievingthattheprincipalhadbyhisactsunder  p thecircumstancesconferreduponhisagent. \     SouthernRwy.Co.v.Pickle ,197S.W.675,677(Tenn.1917)(quoting2CorpusJuris574,575). 4 In Whitev.MethodistHosp.S. ,844S.W.2d642(Tenn.Ct.App.1992),thecourtstated:   8  Apparentagencyisessentiallyagencybyestoppel;itscreationandexistencedepend  uponsuchconductbytheapparentprincipalaswillprecludehimfromdenying  anothersagency. Kellyv.CliffPettitMotors ,191Tenn.390,234S.W.2d822  (1950).Generally,toproveapparentagencyonemustestablish(1)theprincipal l actuallyornegligentlyacquiescedinanotherpartysexerciseofauthority;(2)the X  thirdpersonhadknowledgeofthefactsandagoodfaithbeliefthattheapparent D! agentpossessedsuchauthority;and(3)thethirdpersonreliedonthisapparent 0"  authoritytohisorherdetriment. Oppenheimerv.Wooline ,4Tenn.Civ.App.134 #l! (1834).Seealso SouthernRailwayCo.v.Pickle ,138Tenn.238,197S.W.675 $X" (1917)andAm.Jur.2dAgency,19and80(1986).>$D #   N White ,844S.W.2dat646.Thus,toshowthatWilliamshadtheapparentauthoritytoexecutethe &"% ReleaseonbehalfofFourSeasons,BeersmustshowthatFourSeasonsactuallyornegligently '#& acquiescedinWilliamssigningtheRelease,thatBeershadareasonable,goodfaithbeliefthat (#'  Williamshadsuchauthority,andthatBeersreliedonWilliamsauthoritytoitsdetriment. )$( # %XXCw;#XCX %  In MechanicsLaundryServ.v.AutoGlassCo.ofMemphis,Inc. ,98S.W.2d151(Tenn.   Ct.App.2002),theplaintifflaundryservicesuedthedefendantcorporationforbreachofcontract  forunpaidaccounts,relyingonaservicecontractsignedbyastoremanageratoneofthedefendants  businesslocations.< #  3      # %XXCP#XCX %Ԁ MechanicsLaundryServ. ,98S.W.2dat153.Thepartiesfiledcrossmotions t forsummaryjudgment.Whiletheplaintiffreliedontheplaintermsofthecontract,thedefendant ` arguedthatthestoremanagerwhosignedthecontracthadnoauthoritytobindthecorporation.Both L  partiessubmittedaffidavitsinsupportoftheirpositions.# %XXCS#XCX %Theplaintiffsaffidavitsassertedthatthe 8  storemanagerrepresentedthatshehadfullauthoritytoenterintocontractsforthecorporation,and $ t thathersuperiorsalsorepresented thatshehadfullauthoritytoenterintocontracts. Id. at154.  ` Thedefendantsaffidavits,ontheotherhand,statedthatthestoremanagerwasresponsibleonlyfor  L  thedaytodayoperationsofthestorelocation,andwasnotauthorizedtosigncontractsbindingthe  8  corporation.Thedefendantsaffidavitsalsosaidthatthepresidentofthedefendantcorporationhad $  noknowledgeabouttheexecutionofthecontractin1997untilseveralweekslater.Whenhefinally   learnedofthecontract,henotifiedtheplaintiffthatthestoremanagerwhosignedthecontractwas   noauthorizedtodoso.# %XXCT#XCX %Thestoremanagersaffidavitalsostatedthatshewasnotauthorizedtosign   contractsonbehalfofthecorporation,andthatshedidnotremembersigningthecontract. Id. at   15657.Basedonthatevidence,thetrialcourtgrantedtheplaintiffsmotionforsummaryjudgment. p  Id. at153.Thedefendantappealed. \ # %XXC Y#XCX %  Theappellatecourtreversedtheawardofsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheplaintiffand 4 grantedsummaryjudgmenttothedefendant.Withrespecttoapparentauthority,theappellatecourt  p notedthattheplaintiffsaffidavitstatedmerelythat itwas...representedtousby[thestore  \ managers]superiorsthatshehadfullauthoritytoenterintocontracts.Notingthatapparent H authorityisestablishedthroughtheactsoftheprincipal,theappellatecourtconcludedthatthe 4 assertionsintheaffidavitwerebareconclusorystatements,devoidoffactsordetails,thatdid not   risetothedignityofevidencethatwouldsupportPlaintiffsclaimofapparentauthority. Id. at158.   Thecourtnotedthatthepresidentofthedefendantcorporationdidnotknowaboutthecontractwhen  itwassigned,andthat,whenthepresidentlearnedofthecontract,thecorporationimmediately  notifiedtheplaintiffthatthepersonwhosignedthecontractwasnotauthorizedtodoso. Id. at158.  # %XXCZ#XCX %Furthermore,therecordincludednoevidencethattheplaintiffhadreliedtoitsdetrimentonthe1997 l contract.Therefore,becausetherewasevidencetoshowthatthestoremanagerdidnothavethe X  apparentauthoritytoexecutethecontractonbehalfofthecorporation,andtheevidencetothe D! contrarywasinsufficienttocreateagenuinedisputedfact,theappellatecourtreversedthegrantof 0"  summaryjudgmenttotheplaintiffandgrantedsummaryjudgmenttothedefendantcorporation. Id.  #l! at159. $X"   Theevidenceinthiscaseissimilartothatsubmittedin MechanicsLaundryServ. After  BeersfileditsmotiontodismissalongwiththeRelease,FourSeasonssubmittedaffidavitsasserting    thatWilliamsdidnothaveauthoritytoexecutetheRelease.Gulledgestatedinhisaffidavitthathe  andMrs.Gulledgeoperatethebusinessand makeanyandallbusinessandlegaldecisionsrelating t toFourSeasons.GulledgeclaimedthathisrequestsforpaymentoftheRetainagefunds weremade ` withthefullunderstandingthatifanyoftheRetainedFundsweretobepaidbyBeers,andreceived L  byFourSeasons,itwouldnotimpactorlegallywaiveanyclaimsofBeersorFourSeasonsagainst 8  eachotherregardingeithertheMACortheLaborClaim.# %XXC%`#XCX %Gulledgeacknowledgedthatheasked $ t WilliamstoretrievethecheckfromBeersinFebruary2002,butstatedthathegaveWilliamsno  ` authority towaive,releaseorinanywayimpactanylegalclaimonbehalfofFourSeasons.He  L  saidthattherewasnocopyoftheReleaseinthecompanyfiles,andthathedidnotevenknowthe  8  Releaseexisteduntilhislawyerinformedhimofit.AppendedtoGulledgesaffidavitwerecopies $  ofnineteenpartialreleasessignedbyMrs.GulledgeduringthecourseoftheProjectinexchangefor   partialpaymentsmadetoFourSeasons.HeclaimedthatonlyheandMrs.Gulledge ,assecretary   treasurerofFourSeasons,were authorizedexecutethereleasesonbehalfofFourSeasons.Four   SeasonsalsosubmittedWilliamsaffidavit,inwhichheacknowledgedthathehadno independent   authorityonbehalfofFourSeasonstosignanycontract,legaldocumentormakeanydecision p concerningthereleaseofanyclaimforanymoniesdueandowningtoorfromFourSeasons.He \ admittedthathissignaturewasontheRelease,butsaidthathedidnotremembersigningthe H document,andthathewasnotgivenacopyofitatthetimeitwassigned.Further,Williamsstated 4 thathe certainlyhadnoauthorityfromFourSeasonstowaiveorreleaseanyclaim.# %XXCf#XCX %  p   InresponsetotheevidencesubmittedbyFourSeasons,BeersreliedontheaffidavitofSteve H MorgantoshowthatWilliamshadapparentauthoritytobindFourSeasons.Asnotedabove, 4 Morganmadetheglobalstatementthatitwasnotunusualintheindustryforaprojectmanagerto   pickupchecksandexecutereleasesinexchangeforsuchchecks.Morganalsosaidthat,on   unspecifiedotherconstructionprojects, projectmanagersforFourSeasonshavecollectedcontract  balancesandexecutedreleasedocumentationonmorethanoneoccasion.Morgansaffidavit  includednodetailsontheseprioroccasionsandhedidnotattachtohisaffidavitanyoftheprior  releasestowhichhereferred.Morganassertedgenerallythat representativesofBeerswereofthe l opinionthatWendellWilliamspossessedthenecessaryauthoritytosecurepaymentandexecute X  releasedocumentation,butheneitheridentifiedtheBeersrepresentativestowhomhereferred,nor D! statedthebasisfortheirbeliefthatWilliamshadauthoritytoexecutetheRelease. 0"  # %XXCm#XCX %  Underthesecircumstances,wemustconcludethat# %XXC|r#XCX %theevidencesubmittedbyBeersis $X"  insufficienttoestablishasamatteroflawthatWilliamshadapparentauthoritytoexecutethe $D # ReleaseonbehalfofFourSeasons.l #  4      ׀Thus,Beerswasnotentitledtosummaryjudgmentonthebasis  ofWilliamsapparentauthority.   # %XXCr#XCX %  Beersassertsonappealthat,regardlessofWilliamsauthoritytoexecutetheRelease,the t ReleaseiseffectivebecauseFourSeasonsratifiedtheReleasebyacceptingthepaymentfromBeers. ` Whereaprincipalacceptsthebenefitsofacontractsignedbyitsagent,Beersargues,itisestopped L  fromdenyingitsagentsauthority. SeeWhitfieldv.May ,89S.W.2d764,769(Tenn.Ct.App. 8  1935). Ratificationistheexpressorimpliedadoptionandconfirmationbyonepersonofanactor $ t contractperformedorenteredintoinhisbehalfbyanotherwhoassumedtoactashisagentwithout  ` authoritytodoso. BellsBankingCo.v.JacksonCentre,Inc. ,938S.W.2d421,427(Tenn.Ct.  L  App.1996); seeWebberv.StateFarmMut.AutoIns.Co. ,49S.W.3d265,271(Tenn.2001).# %XXCu#XCX %ԀFor  8  ratificationofacontracttoexist,itmustbeshownthat(1)theprincipalacceptedthebenefitsofthe $  contract;(2)withfullknowledgeofthefacts;and(3)circumstancesoranaffirmativeelection   indicatinganintentiontoadopttheunauthorizedarrangement. BellsBanking ,938S.W.2dat427.     Ratificationisaquestionoffacttobedeterminedfromthesurroundingcircumstances,andthere   cannotbearatificationwithoutproofofanintenttoratify. Absarv.Jones ,833S.W.2d86,8990   (Tenn.Ct.App.1992). p   InordertograntsummaryjudgmenttoBeersbasedonratification,Beersmustestablishas H amatteroflawthatFourSeasonsacceptedthebenefitsofthecontractwith fullknowledgeofthe 4 facts. Id. Itisundisputed,however,thatFourSeasonsdidnotknowabouttheexistenceofthe  p ReleaseatthetimeitacceptedthepaymentfromBeers,andthatitwastoldabouttheReleasebyits  \ counselafterthislawsuitwasfiled.BeersarguesthatFourSeasons,nevertheless,ratifiedthe H contractbyfailingtooffertoreturnthemoneygiveninexchangefortheReleaseoncetheRelease 4 wasdiscovered.Atthesametime,BeersacknowledgesthatthefundsheldbyFourSeasonswere   theRetainagefundsheldbyBeersoverthecourseofthecontract.FourSeasonsassertsthatthe   RetainagefundsitwaspaidatthetimetheReleasewasapparentlyexecutedwere undisputedfunds  towhichitwouldhavebeenentitledinanyevent.Whenapartymerelyacceptsabenefittowhich  itisalreadyentitled,suchconductistooambiguoustosupportafindingthatthepartyintendedto  ratifythecontractandacceptsitsterms. SeeDuffyTool&Stamping,Inc.v.BoschAuto.Motor l Sys.Corp. ,No.M199700144COAR3CV,2000WL122225,at*7(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.1,2000). X  Therefore,wecannotconcludethattheevidencesubmittedtothetrialcourtestablishesasamatter D! oflawthatFourSeasonsintendedtoratifytheReleasesignedbyWilliams. 0"  # %XXCy#XCX %  Insum,weconcludethattheevidenceisinsufficienttoestablishasamatteroflawthat  WilliamshadactualorapparentauthoritytoexecutetheReleaseonbehalfofFourSeasons,orthat  FourSeasonsratifiedtheRelease.Consequently,thetrialcourtsdismissalofFourSeasons  complaint,basedonthetermsoftheRelease,mustbereversed.Allotherissuesraisedinthisappeal t arepretermitted. `   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversedandthecauseisremandedforfurtherproceedings 8  notinconsistentwiththisOpinion.CostsaretobeassessedtoAppelleeBeersSkanska,Inc.,for $ t whichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.  ` # %XXC #_?XCX %    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     HOLLYM.KIRBY,JUDGE# %XXC#