ÿWPCñ 8VXø ‚AïÉÀ~]¥¯[¯¢7z+·¢¾Ï^¬åçÔÿ¶Õ@«H«ÌÌ¥vß,ÝÑšƒ‰×„eŒÞmewB±é»¥sÅ­%º Ê«µ‘CùlJ^É76*;-}ÁÒ±«< !rŠ"a§çž±Rôò”ÑɺSú¬1WâfŠÈÈ ®~¹ìW¦W5ò†¯Ô)Ò .MVäÀŒµ<ßËNÅÉ#B4¬§tß½t“ˆo“ƒÀ¹¾¦ËüÒ^O½åþ‘³%þ`[ðr²§tãy­ªµÃ¨ú‹AÏ ˆŽÍ{n,­*AWÓ×ú3G2 ¸”Ñ´I¸iÞœÓ(¢§m“æîÙÚÓ#«è!ô­§¦ÔKp>e÷ …m’ à‚:4’’ÁMÏœÌÞCŒÿešò«F](# Ñ>{oŽÚéÚín>Š­AuA½´ê0ÖuÛSÖ.gq† ¾ +"¹a`ìÝé&Àx~CÕ#)”¬h‚&ê4ר÷h'5˜L‘i1W½*E?&Y—™aá<ãG7‚Pûø°9Ïé;d úƒžÁ[ê§>µÁêNÓ>6Ó<€Ê=½\ŽW¿²6¾7Ìͳ|¦¬ýŽüìIzld\%—­²hÞf5¤b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 1‡‘ Æ ÆÞ Ƥ Æj 0D0Ntv 0c~Eá 1‡ã 1‡jUNñ 1u? 72´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´bææææææææææææææææææææææææææææææææææææ 0ëîîîî BÙÙ 0¤ö D3š D-Í 0Kúú ASEƘ 0¤^ 0D A«F˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»yuV+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(UfCEKQW]cioAutoList3I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList4I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- ù-(|G2ºd$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XáX»»Ô d(|3É\$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3É\$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€O}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼O}»»»ÔÑ8€áXXdì»»d8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@••ìàAugust€7,€2001€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XáX»¼O}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼O}»XXá #ÔÓ  ÓFREDERIC€R.€HARRIS,€INC.,€v.€THE€METROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENTÐ Ò" ÐOF€NASHVILLE€AND€DAVIDSON€COUNTY,€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XáX»¼O}Ôó óÐ æ 6 ÐÓæÓÌà@¥ ¥ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ æ 6 Ðà@t t ìàNo.€95„537„II€€€€€€Hon.€Carol€L.€McCoy,€ChancellorˆÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` A߈Ð –æ  ÐÌà@œ œ ìàNo.€M2000„02421„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€22,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ԈР‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌPlaintiff€sued€for€payments€under€contract.€€The€Trial€Court€held€defendant€was€not€liable€forÐ P  Ðadditional€payments€under€the€contract.€€We€affirm.Ð <Œ ÐÌÌÔ#†¼O}»XXáp#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼O}Ôò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#†¼O}»àXá¸#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼O}Ô,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Houston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ô#†¼O}»àXá#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼O}ÔÐ Ä ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andòò€D.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,Ô#†¼O}»àXá-#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼O}Ô€J.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌPeter€H.€Curry,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant€Frederic€R.€Harris,€Inc.Ð ˆØ ÐÌThe€Department€of€Law€of€the€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County,€KarlÐ `° ÐF.€Dean,€Director€of€Law,€Michael€B.€Bligh€and€John€L.€Kennedy,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€forÐ L œ ÐAppellee,€The€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County,€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼O}»XXáæ#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼O}ԈРü#L# ÐÌòòÌà  àà ` àóóÔ‡XáXXXáÔIn€this€action€on€contract,€plaintiff,€sued€defendant€alleging€breach€of€contract,€unjustÐ À&"& Ðenrichment,€and€estoppel.€€Defendant€answered,€admitting€the€terms€of€the€contract,€but€averred€thatÐ ¬'ü"' Ðit€had€paid€all€amounts€due.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€granted€defendant€Summary€Judgment,€and€plaintiff€appealed.€€ThisÐ p*À%* ÐCourt,€in€remanding€for€trial€said:Ð \+¬&+ ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€Court€below€did€not€delve€into€the€course€of€dealings€of€the€parties,€nor€whetherÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôthe€benefits€of€this€arrangement€were€actually€retained€under€circumstances€whichÐ ° Ðwould€make€it€unfair€for€FRH€to€go€uncompensated.€€Thus,€it€is€not€necessary€for€thisÐ œì ÐCourt€to€address€the€accuracies€of€FRHððs€alleged€cost€under€the€contract.€€Nor€is€itÐ ˆØ Ðnecessary€to€decide€the€appropriateness€of€Metroððs€offer€to€settle€the€cost€issue.€€It€isÐ tÄ Ðenough€to€state€that€the€contract€between€FRH€and€Metro€was€within€the€power€ofÐ `° ÐMetro€to€authorize.€€It€is€a€question€of€material€fact€whether€or€not€the€contract€on€theÐ L œ Ðpart€of€FRH€is€partially€executed€or€fully€executed€in€matters€relating€to€change€orderÐ 8 ˆ ÐNo.€6.€.€.€.Ð$ t` (#` (# ÐÌUpon€remand,€a€trial€was€held€and€the€Trial€Court€found€that€Metro€asked€for€bids€for€a€feasibilityÐ ü L  Ðstudy€regarding€its€traffic€control€system.€€FRH€was€a€leading€expert€in€the€field€of€traffic€controlÐ è 8  Ðdesign€and€implementation,€and€€successfully€bid€the€project.€€FRH€had€recommended€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðsystem€be€based€on€a€federally€sponsored€Uniform€Traffic€Control€System,€and€FRH€was€to€makeÐ À  Ðthe€necessary€enhancements.€€FRH€recommended€a€mainframe€computer€which€was€purchased€byÐ ¬ü  ÐMetro.€The€contract€specified€that€the€system€would€ultimately€be€used€to€synchronize€550Ð ˜è  Ðintersections.€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€in€1986€FRH€knew€that€using€a€single€processor€couldÐ „Ô  Ðcreate€problems€due€to€timing€constraints,€but€FRH€€recommended€the€use€of€a€centralized€singleÐ pÀ Ðprocessing€unit.€€Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àFor€the€years€1985€through€1989,€there€were€five€change€orders€approved€by€Metro.€Ð 4„ ÐThe€first€four€change€orders€were€initiated€by€Metro,€and€the€fifth€order€was€proposed€by€FRH,€andÐ  p Ðincreased€the€estimated€costs€by€$176,780.€The€Court€found€that€all€five€of€the€change€ordersÐ  \ Ðcomplied€with€the€60€day€notice€provision€in€the€contract.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€March€27,€1989,€FRH€advised€Metro€that€it€could€not€make€the€enhanced€UTCSÐ Ð  Ðsoftware€work,€and€recommended€that€Metro€forego€the€use€of€the€UTCS€software€in€favor€of€a€newÐ ¼  Ðsoftware€program€which€FRH€was€developing€called€TMS.€€€In€April€of€1989,€FRH€advised€MetroÐ ¨ø Ðin€writing€that€it€could€not€control€the€number€of€intersections€required€by€the€contract€with€theÐ ”ä ÐUTCS€software.€€FRH€once€again€suggested€that€Metro€use€the€new€TMS€software,€but€did€notÐ €Ð Ðsubmit€an€estimate€of€additional€costs.Ð l¼ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àFRH€worked€on€developing€the€TMS€software€through€December€1991,€and€wasÐ D!” Ðdeveloping€the€TMS€software€for€other€cities€as€well,€including€Austin,€Fort€Worth,€and€Honolulu.€Ð 0"€  ÐFRH€billed€identical€amounts€for€travel,€telephone,€postage,€and€copy€charges€for€all€four€cities.€€€TheÐ #l! Ðcourt€found€that€FRHððs€representative€could€not€state€whether€the€work€charged€to€Metro€was€aÐ $X" Ðduplication€of€work€charged€to€the€other€three€cities,€and€did€not€know€what€the€total€cost€ofÐ ô$D # Ðdevelopment€was.€€The€court€stated€that€the€witness€testified€that€the€time€billed€to€Metro€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðaccurate€and€was€for€work€actually€performed,€but€the€record€did€not€support€his€assertion€and€ð ðhisÐ Ì&"% Ðcredibility€is€undermined€by€evidence€that€the€TMS€software€was€already€in€the€development€stageÐ ¸'#& Ðwhen€Harris€proposed€it€as€an€alternative,€that€the€TMS€software€was€being€developed€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcustomized€for€several€major€U.S.€cities,€and€that€Harris€assessed€its€expenses€in€a€blanket€pro€rataÐ )à$( Ðfashion€between€the€cities.ðð€€Ð |*Ì%) ЀÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àThe€Court€further€held€that€the€TMS€software€never€met€the€requirements€set€out€inÐ ° Ðthe€technical€manual,€nor€did€it€ever€successfully€test€on€all€levels€at€once.€€Metro€found€the€softwareÐ œì Ðto€be€deficient€and€unstable,€and€it€continually€had€problems.€€Nonetheless,€FRH€sent€letters€to€MetroÐ ˆØ Ðrequesting€$287,029.00,€and€stating€that€these€costs€were€incurred€because€FRH€had€to€do€additionalÐ tÄ Ðwork€in€order€to€fulfill€its€obligations€under€the€contract.€€€FRH€submitted€the€sixth€change€order€inÐ `° Ð1992,€even€though€it€had€begun€work€on€the€TMS€software€in€1989„1990.€€€In€February€of€1994,Ð L œ ÐMetro€advised€FRH€that€it€was€terminating€the€contract€pursuant€to€Article€10,€Section€D,€and€sentÐ 8 ˆ ÐFRH€$27,€851.65.€€€Metro€did€not€have€the€UTCS€software,€because€FRH€had€taken€it€back,€and€Ð $ t ÐMetro€used€the€TMS€program€somewhat€between€1989€and€1993,€but€it€never€fulfilled€theÐ  ` Ðrequirement€to€computerize€550€intersections.€€Metro€does€not€now€use€the€TMS€program.€€Ð ü L  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€Court€held€that€FRH€failed€to€perform€its€end€of€the€contract€when€it€could€notÐ Ô$  Ðmake€the€UTCS€software€work,€and€that€FRH€then€proposed€to€substitute€the€TMS€software€to€fulfillÐ À  Ðits€contractual€obligations,€but€it€did€not€provide€Metro€with€any€notice€that€the€costs€would€beÐ ¬ü  Ðsubstantially€greater€than€those€set€forth€in€the€contract.€€The€Court€found€that€Metro€allowed€FRHÐ ˜è  Ðto€try€and€correct€the€problem€by€using€the€TMS€software,€but€that€this€did€not€create€an€inducementÐ „Ô  Ðupon€which€FRH€relied€in€incurring€more€costs€such€that€estoppel€would€come€into€play.€€€The€CourtÐ pÀ Ðfound€the€sixth€change€order€was€not€submitted€in€a€fashion€in€keeping€with€the€partiesðð€course€ofÐ \¬ Ðdealing,€and€was€not€properly€submitted€according€to€the€contractððs€terms.€€Essentially,€the€CourtÐ H˜ Ðheld€that€FRH€was€to€blame€for€problems€with€the€software€and€hardware€which€FRH€hadÐ 4„ Ðrecommended,€and€that€it€had€complete€control€over€the€project.€€The€Court€dismissed€the€action€onÐ  p Ðthe€basis€that€FRH€failed€to€perform€its€obligations€under€the€contract.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issues€raised€on€appeal€are€whether€the€Trial€Curt€erred€in€finding€that€FRH€couldÐ ä4 Ðnot€recover€its€costs€under€the€doctrines€of€implied€contract€and/or€estoppel,€ò òó óand€whether€the€TrialÐ Ð  ÐCourt€erred€in€finding€that€FRH€was€not€entitled€to€be€paid€for€the€work€it€performed€up€to€the€pointÐ ¼  Ðthat€Metro€terminated€the€contract,€pursuant€to€Section€10D.Ð ¨ø ÐÔ#†XáXXXáj #ÔÔ‡XáXXXáÔÔ#†¼O}»XXá #ÔÔ‡XáX»¼O}ÔÌà  àà ` àThe€findings€of€fact€by€the€Trial€Court€are€presumed€correct€unless€the€evidenceÐ €Ð Ðpreponderates€against€the€finding.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Questions€of€law€are€not€accorded€anyÐ l¼ Ðpresumption€of€correctness.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€contract€between€the€parties€provides€that€FRH€would€perform€certain€servicesÐ 0"€  Ðfor€Metro,€and€that€the€cost€of€the€same€would€not€exceed€$342,424.00.€€The€contract€provides€thatÐ #l! Ðif€the€costs€were€going€to€exceed€that€amount,€FRH€was€to€notify€Metro€in€writing€and€provide€aÐ $X" Ðrevised€estimate.€€The€contract€further€provides€that€Metro€would€not€be€liable€for€such€additionalÐ ô$D # Ðcosts€unless€Metro€notified€FRH€in€writing€that€the€costs€had€been€increased,€and€specified€in€theirÐ à%0!$ Ðnotice€a€revised€estimated€cost.€€The€contract€specifies€that€any€changes€to€the€contract€had€to€beÐ Ì&"% Ðincorporated€as€written€amendments,€and€provides€that€the€contract€could€be€terminated€by€MetroÐ ¸'#& Ðat€any€time€by€giving€fifteen€days€notice,€and€that€if€Metro€terminated€the€agreement,€FRH€wouldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€paid€ð ðincurred€cost€for€completed€or€partially€completed€work,€plus€a€pro€rata€portion€of€the€FixedÐ )à$( ÐFee.ððà  àThe€evidence€supports€the€Trial€Courtððs€factual€findings.€€Regarding€change€order€six,€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence€establishes€the€first€estimate€of€these€additional€costs€was€sent€to€Metro€on€December€31,Ð h+¸&* Ð1991,€requesting€the€$287,029.00€for€work€already€done.€€Change€order€number€six€was€neverÐ ° Ðapproved€in€writing,€and€FRH€did€not€comply€with€the€terms€of€the€contract€and/or€with€the€partiesððÐ œì Ðprevious€course€of€dealing€in€seeking€this€increase€in€costs.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€law€in€this€jurisdiction€is€clear€that€when€parties€have€an€express€contract€dealingÐ `° Ðwith€a€transaction,€there€can€be€no€recovery€either€in€quantum€meruit€or€implied€contract.€€òòJaffe€v.Ð L œ ÐBoltonóó,€817€S.W.2d€19€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòFletcher€Realty,€Inc.€v.€Hayslope€Propertiesóó,€712Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€478€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€estoppel,€the€issue€is€whether€Metro€acted€to€induce€FRH€to€perform€theÐ ü L  Ðadditional€work€and€incur€additional€costs€by€promising€that€Metro€would€pay€for€the€same.€€UnderÐ è 8  Ðthe€terms€of€the€contract,€Metro€was€not€obligated€to€pay€costs€in€excess€of€the€estimate€unless€suchÐ Ô$  Ðchange€was€approved€in€writing€by€Metro€after€receipt€of€the€revised€estimate.€€Metro€received€theÐ À  Ðestimate€at€issue€in€December€1991,€and€received€the€change€order€at€issue€in€May€of€1992,€but€didÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€approve€in€accordance€with€the€terms€of€the€contract.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€reveals€that€the€cost€request€in€the€sixth€change€order€had€essentially€beenÐ pÀ Ðincurred€prior€to€submitting€the€request.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àMetroððs€representative€admitted€that€he€never€called€anyone€at€FRH€during€the€timeÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€request€for€the€additional€cost€was€made€in€late€1991,€until€the€contract€was€terminated€byÐ  p ÐMetro.€€However,€prior€to€1991,€Metro€had€no€notice€of€what€these€costs€would€be€or€that€thereÐ  \ Ðwould€be€any.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€does€not€establish€a€promise€or€inducement€by€Metro€toÐ øH Ðpay€any€costs€incurred€by€FRH.€€Moreover,€the€evidence€supports€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€thatÐ ä4 ÐFRH€was€simply€trying€to€fulfill€its€obligations€under€the€contract,€and€Metro€had€no€notice€that€anyÐ Ð  Ðadditional€costs€would€be€required.€€There€is€no€basis€to€invoke€the€doctrine€of€estoppel€againstÐ ¼  ÐMetro.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€FRH€argued€that€it€is€due€some€additional€compensation€because€MetroÐ €Ð Ðterminated€the€agreement€ð ðfor€its€convenienceðð.€€FRH€had€already€been€fully€paid€pursuant€to€theÐ l¼ Ðterms€of€the€contract,€moreover,€Metro€never€received€the€full€benefit€for€which€it€bargained.€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðtermination€clause€does€not€abrogate€the€other€terms€of€the€contract,€including€FRHððs€duty€toÐ D!” Ðperform€under€the€contract.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€material€factual€determination€made€by€the€Trial€Court€directed€by€this€Court,Ð $X" Ðupon€remand,€are€fully€supported€by€the€evidence€and€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court,Ð ô$D # Ðholding€that€the€plaintiffððs€claims€are€without€merit.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€to€Frederic€R.€Harris,€Inc.Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àÔ#†¼O}»XXáå(#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼O}ÔÔ#†XáXXXá£(#ÔÔ‡XáXXXáÔÌÌÔ#†XáXXXáh=#ÔÔ#†¼O}»XXá&=#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼O}Ôòòóóà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà0 h àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à_________________________Ð|*Ì%)(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.óóÔ#†¼O}»XXáÏ=#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼O}Ô