ÿWPCv ·ï¡<*Û„Á•-Äð‹ 2°yžIò'{Œ…Rƒ³L›ç™Ùm}‰O Ñv*âŸê!3…!fðN”{¦k¦‡•, jàÏlLš*œ©¶3yQ+ÈADöˆ,µexÕ¦I[±d«¢¡¾Ù·›{†˜ÄÚ1/‰Ì¼¦˜‚¸í‰hÍ]½ÖɳHd–ëÄhÚ‘­–TI†Xø~ð‰‡ù4 ê¢ã2õ±j7²(¿ÁáÕ>®§æ —ì‰îêôf’zFìǧmžï}BJÎg[œË’µÏi•¥â&ñp>ÙѨԕE™ì“mÆʆ¶–YÜ1,Öú·1»áQbNÕ6 òW¨ªtîcJØö[}ê7ý“É&ý<ÿ)ÚÖ’NØÇò€ÆøïÚ¬<Ò\nÏ“Û6áó¿Ë5Ç×w™7 Q ÃO‰áýïÙ÷ö“†¼Â/"EvW–B kÞ8¬ ݲ$Ø$蜫ü b¥¿<{c{HghZ§&ýÔ,6)©À$K¤õÇÆ@Ö»ô•x rí«Ô? ßN~½ WsÝäjvÎÓ™ÄÐî¡Cn±Ù<§Q ˜óF½’ÔõíínÃÙÄEqU%U»ØW…E"•5ji2'!ò’¾§T–“ãï·S1.ºW#ÁÂU Nƒ %Ñ 0:×U N 0c_ 0w 1u9 72® 1‡à ^ g 1‡s wú 4þ  ! m# 1‡: Á 1‡Ù Ù E` ` õb b 0DW©› 1‡DD 1‡ËË 1‡RRR 0 ŠÙÙ 1‡cfê 1‡PPPå×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××× 0¼¼¼¼ BY˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(º½CEKQW]cioAutoList41)1)1)1)1)1)1)1)ƒo+s 05ÈCEKQW]cioAutoList11.I.1.1.1.1.1.1.8n_+8\¥ ¡ ¡3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ0EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. Ø Ø(UfCEKQW]cioAutoList3I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. ëÝ ƒRëy$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô|òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àTwo€other€issues,€unrelated€to€the€matter€currently€before€the€Court,€were€appealed€to€theÐ ° ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòSee€Hawkins€v.€Superior€Motors,€Inc.óó,€999€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€2d€769€(Tenn.€1999).€€However,€noneÐ tÄ Ðof€the€above€determinations€at€issue€before€this€Court€were€appealed.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ŸÝ ƒRëy$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô|òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àIn€addition€to€Sonic€Automotive.€Inc.,€Plaintiffs€also€included€Sonic€Automotive€of€Tennessee,Ð ° ÐInc.€and€Sonic€Automotive€of€Nashville,€LLC€as€Defendants€in€this€complaint.€€The€two€addition€entities€are€relatedÐ tÄ Ðto€Sonic€Automotive.0uHCEKQW]cioAutoList5I.A.I.I.I.I.I.I. Ú¼CEKQW]cioAutoList6A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.(ê½CEKQW]cioAutoList7A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(ú½CEKQW]cioAutoList8IVIVIVIVIVIVIVIV \Ý ƒRëy$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô|òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThis€Court€affirmed€the€denial€of€a€constructive€trust€on€other€grounds€finding€that€it€was€anÐ ° Ðinappropriate€equitable€remedy€due€to€the€availability€of€damages€from€Hart€and€Superior. ½CEKQW]cioAutoList9A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A. ÛÝ ƒRëy$ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô|òXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€record€does€not€provide€the€exact€date€that€negotiation€began€between€European€and€Sonic,Ð ° Ðnor€does€the€record€reveal€the€date€the€parties€entered€into€an€agreement€or€the€date€they€consummated€the€sale.€Ð tÄ ÐHowever,€Plaintiffs€admit€in€their€brief€that€negotiation€between€European€and€Sonic€began€during€the€pendency€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€appeal€and€that€they€first€notified€Sonic€of€their€alleged€claim€to€the€Superior€assets€on€November€21,€1997,€aÐ üL Ðmonth€after€the€Court€of€Appeals€entered€its€decision€in€this€matter.(.G2ëy$¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô|òXXÔ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Xô8XXXÔÑ  ÑÔ‡¼W-»XXô8ÔÑ8€ô8XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€÷+ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ#†Xô8X»¼W-h#ÔÔ‡îCLîXXô8ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†Xô8XîîCL#ÔÔ‡¼W-»XXô8ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJanuary€29,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ#†Xô8X»¼W-¸#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼W-»XXô8ÔDWAYNE€HAWKINS,€òòet€al.óó€v.€PATRICK€A.€HART,€òòet€alóó.Ô#†Xô8X»¼W-M#Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96C„2528€€€€€€Barbara€N.€Haynes,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02449„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€15,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ԀР¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†Xô8XXXô8=#ÔÌThis€matter€began€when€Plaintiffs€signed€an€agreement€to€purchase€an€automobile€dealership€fromÐ d´ ÐDefendant,€Patrick€Hart.€€Defendant€Hart€refused€to€honor€this€agreement€and€later€agreed€to€sell€theÐ P  Ðdealership€to€Defendant,€Nelson€Bowers.€€The€current€case€flows€from€these€breach€of€contract€andÐ <Œ Ðinducement€of€breach€of€contract€actions€previously€dismissed€by€the€trial€court€and€appealed€to€thisÐ (x ÐCourt.€We€are€now€asked€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ d Ðdecision€in€this€matter.€€€Plaintiffs€appeal€two€orders€issued€by€the€trial€court€on€remand:€(1)€an€orderÐ P Ðdismissing€claims€for€conversion€and€interference€with€business€relations€against€the€BowersÐ ì< ÐDefendants,€€reinstating€the€discretionary€costs€previously€vacated€by€this€Court€in€favor€of€theÐ Ø( ÐBowers€Defendants,€and€denying€Plaintiffsðð€motion€to€amend€to€add€additional€claims€and€parties;Ð Ä Ðand€€(2)€a€second€order€dismissing€Plaintiffsðð€separate€action€against€European€Motors€and€SonicÐ ° ÐAutomotive,€parties€whom€Plaintiffs€had€previously€tried€to€join€in€the€original€action.€We€find€thatÐ œì Ðthe€trial€court€correctly€interpreted€and€applied€the€Court€of€Appeals€decision€and€affirm€both€ordersÐ ˆØ Ðin€their€entirety.Ð tÄ ÐÔ‡Xô8XXXô8ÔÓòÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€ó óÐ L œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.óó€andÐ $"t! ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€joined.Ð #`" ÐÌSteven€A.€Riley,€Katharine€R.€Cloud,€and€Taylor€A.€Ô_ÔCatesÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,Ð è$8 $ ÐDwayne€Hawkins€and€Al€Ô_ÔGossettÔ_Ô.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌJohn€P.€Ô_ÔBranhamÔ_Ô€and€Kathryn€Barnett,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Patrick€A.€Hart,Ð ¬'ü"' ÐSuperior€Motors,€Inc.,€Nelson€Bowers,€II,€and€Bowers€Transportation€Group,€LLC.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌH.€Wayne€Grant€and€David€M.€Elliott,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Ô_ÔBownelÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔEMNÔ_Ô,Ð p*À%* ÐLLC€f/k/a€European€Motors€of€Nashville,€LLC,€Sonic€Automotive,€Inc.,€Sonic€Automotive€ofÐ \+¬&+ ÐTennessee,€Inc.,€and€Sonic€Automotive€of€Nashville,€LLC.Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(- ЇÓ† Óò òOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓÔ#†Xô8XXXô8é #ÔÓ  Óò òI.€€à @ àCase€Historyó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓ^Óà  àThis€is€round€two€of€an€action€originally€brought€by€Plaintiffs/Appellants,€Dwayne€HawkinsÐ `° Ðand€Al€Ô_ÔGossettÔ_Ô,€against€Defendants/Appellees,€Patrick€Hart€and€Superior€Motors,€Inc.€The€factsÐ L œ Ðregarding€that€original€action€are€well€set€out€in€the€previous€opinion€of€this€Court.òò€€Seeóó€òòHawkins€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐHartóó,€No.€01A01„9707„CV„00294,€1998€WL€272926€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€29,€1998).€€In€summary,€Ð $ t ÐPlaintiffs€signed€an€agreement€with€Defendant,€Patrick€Hart,€owner€of€Superior€Motors,€Inc.€toÐ  ` Ðpurchase€Superior€Motors€in€September€of€1995€(hereinafter€the€ð ðAgreement.ðð)€€Shortly€after€signingÐ ü L  Ðthe€Agreement,€Hart€determined€that€the€terms€were€not€advantageous€to€him€and€€informedÐ è 8  ÐPlaintiffs€that€he€was€unwilling€to€proceed€with€the€sale€as€agreed.€€The€parties€subsequently€beganÐ Ô$  Ðnegotiating€new€terms.€€Plaintiffs€sued€Hart€and€Superior€Motors€for€breach€of€contract€on€July€8,Ð À  Ð1996.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àHart€entered€into€an€agreement€on€August€16,€1996€with€Nelson€Bowers€and€his€company,Ð „Ô  ÐBowers€Transportation€Group€(hereinafter€ð ðthe€Bowers€Defendantsðð),€to€sell€Superior€Motors€toÐ pÀ ÐBowers.€€On€September€19,€1996,€the€Bowers€Defendants€were€added€to€the€1996€law€suit€when€theÐ \¬ Ðtrial€court€granted€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€Amend€and€allowed€their€First€Amended€Complaint,€whichÐ H˜ Ðasserted€that€Bowers€held€the€assets€of€Superior€in€constructive€trust€and€were€liable€for€inducingÐ 4„ Ðbreach€of€the€agreement.Ð  p ÐÌà  àPrior€to€the€actual€sale€of€Superior€Motors,€Bowers€assigned€the€contract€to€European€Motors,Ð øH Ðanother€entity€owned€by€Bowers.€€€European€Motors€then€purchased€the€assets€of€Superior€Motors.€Ð ä4 ÐIn€December€1996,€Plaintiffs€attempted€to€amend€their€Complaint€to€add€European€Motors€as€aÐ Ð  Ðdefendant,€asserting€the€same€claims€against€them€as€previously€asserted€against€the€BowersÐ ¼  ÐDefendants.€In€April€1997,€Plaintiffs€again€attempted€to€amend€their€Complaint€to€add€a€new€causeÐ ¨ø Ðof€action,€interference€with€prospective€economic€advantage.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€two€motions€for€summary€judgment€were€filed€by€Defendants€in€this€matter€andÐ l¼ Ðheard€along€with€Plaintiffsðð€Motions€to€Amend.€€Hart€and€Superior€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÐ X ¨ Ðjudgment,€which€was€granted€in€an€Order€dated€April€21,€1997.€€In€this€Order,€the€trial€court€foundÐ D!” Ðthat€the€Agreement€was€too€uncertain€to€be€enforced;€therefore,€Hart€and€Superior€were€entitled€toÐ 0"€  Ðsummary€judgment.€€The€second€motion€was€filed€by€the€Bowers€Defendants.€€In€their€motion,€theÐ #l! ÐBowers€Defendants€argued€that€they€were€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€since€theÐ $X" Ðundisputed€evidence€showed€that€the€Agreement€between€Plaintiffs€and€Defendants,€Hart€andÐ ô$D # ÐSuperior,€was€breached€prior€to€Bowers€having€any€knowledge€of€the€Agreement.€€Further,€for€theÐ à%0!$ Ðpurposes€of€their€summary€judgment€motion,€Bowers€specifically€assumed€the€Ô_ÔenforceabilityÔ_Ô€of€theÐ Ì&"% ÐAgreement.€€The€trial€court€also€granted€this€second€summary€judgment€motion€and€deniedÐ ¸'#& ÐPlaintiffsðð€Motions€to€Amend€in€an€Order€dated€April€28,€1997.€€Herein€the€court€stated:€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÓ€ (5È03Óà8  àà ` à1.à ¸ àAs€a€matter€of€law,€neither€Bowers€nor€European€can€be€liable€for€à @r àà @r àÐ |*Ì%) Ðinducement€of€breach€of€contract€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„50„109.€Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à2.à ¸ àThe€tort€of€intentional€interference€with€a€prospective€economic€à @Ö àÐ ° Ðadvantage€is€not€a€recognized€cause€of€action€in€Tennessee.€€ÐœìÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à3.à ¸ àThe€imposition€of€a€constructive€trust€on€the€assets€of€European€à @Ð àÐ ˆØ Ðpurchased€by€Bowers€from€Superior€Motors,€Inc.€is€not€an€appropriate€equitableÐ tÄ Ðremedy€given€the€absence€of€liability€under€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€47„50„109,€the€facts€asÐ `° Ðpresented€to€the€Court,€and€the€findings€in€the€Order€granting€Defendants€SuperiorÐ L œ ÐMotors,€Inc.,€and€Patrick€A.€Hartððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ àWHEREFORE,€it€is€hereby€ORDERED€that€Bowersðð€Motion€forÐ $ t ÐSummary€Judgment€is€granted,€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€Amend€is€denied,€and€this€caseÐ  ` Ðis€dismissed€in€its€entirety€with€the€costs€taxed€against€the€plaintiffs.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àPlaintiffs€then€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€Orders€to€this€Court.€€The€issues€presented€for€appeal,Ð Ô$  Ðwhich€are€relevant€to€the€matter€currently€at€bar,€were€framed€by€Plaintiffs€as€follows:Ð À  ÐÌÓ€ (Eh80 Óà  àI.à8 ` àWhether€a€written€purchase€agreement€for€an€automobile€dealershipÐ ˜è  Ðis€too€uncertain€to€be€enforced€simply€because€it€is€conditioned€uponÐ „Ô  Ðthe€buyerððs€ability€to€obtain€an€acceptable€lease€or€purchase€of€theÐ pÀ Ðpremises€and€provides€that€the€buyer€will€buy€such€of€sellerððs€usedÐ \¬ Ðcars€as€seller€and€buyer€may€agree€upon.ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌÓ€ (Uf88ÓØ! !Øà  à.€.€.€.€Ð  p ÐÌÌà  àIII.€à8 ` àWhether€a€constructive€trust€may€be€imposed€on€the€assets€ofÐ ä4 ÐSuperior€Motors€where€the€assets€were€conveyed€to€a€third€party€withÐ Ð  Ðknowledge€of€Appellantsðð€written€agreement€to€purchase€those€assets.м ` x` x ÐÌà  àIV.à8 ` àWhether€Tennessee€recognizes€the€tort€of€interference€withÐ ”ä Ðprospective€economic€advantage.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€this€Court,€in€òòHawkins€v.€Hartóó,€1998€WL€272926,€€made€the€followingÐ X ¨ Ðdeterminations€from€these€presented€issues:Ð D!” ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ (º½88ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£o,ÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝTennessee€does€not€recognize€the€tort€of€interference€with€prospective€economic€advantage,Ð #l! Ðthus€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€allow€the€April€1997€amendment€attempting€to€addÐ $X" Ðthis€cause€of€action.݃3£o,œ,ÝŒÐô$D #(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£*.ÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝThe€purchase€of€certain€assets€of€the€dealership€may€be€enforceable,€and€a€contract€may€beÐ à%0!$ Ðfound€to€exist,€thus€summary€judgment€granted€in€favor€of€Hart€and€Superior€was€reversed.݃3£*.W.ÝŒÐÌ&"%(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£»/ÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  Ýð ð[Ô_ÔI]tÔ_Ô€was€not€error€for€the€Trial€Court€to€refuse€to€impose€a€constructive€trust€on€assetsÐ ¸'#& Ðconveyed€to€a€third€party.ðð€€€€òòId.óó€at€*10.€€A€constructive€trust€is€available€only€when€damagesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðare€unavailable,€and€in€this€case,€Plaintiffs€have€a€remedy€of€damages.݃3£»/è/ÝŒÐ)à$((#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£Ú1ÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝNo€reversible€error€was€found€with€regard€to€the€trial€courtððs€discretionary€denial€ofÐ |*Ì%) ÐPlaintiffsðð€leave€to€amend€their€First€Amended€Complaint.݃3£Ú12ÝŒÐh+¸&*(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£M3ÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝDiscretionary€costs€were€vacated€subject€to€reinstatement.݃3£M3z3݌а(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌThe€case€was€subsequently€remanded€for€further€proceedings.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àFurther€developments€occurred€in€the€case€between€the€time€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€caseÐ `° Ðand€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision.€€The€assets€Superior€Motors,€Inc.€were€again€sold,€this€time€byÐ L œ ÐEuropean€Motors€to€Sonic€Automotive,€Inc.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOn€remand€to€the€trial€court,€it€became€evident€that€the€parties€disagreed€on€what€had€actuallyÐ  ` Ðbeen€decided€by€the€trial€and€appellate€courts.€€Plaintiffs€filed€another€Motion€to€Amend€Complaint,Ð ü L  Ðostensibly€to€conform€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€opinion,€and€attached€their€Third€AmendedÐ è 8  ÐComplaint.€€This€Complaint€continued€to€allege€the€inducement€claim€against€the€BowersÐ Ô$  ÐDefendants,€continued€to€request€a€constructive€trust,€attempted€to€add€European€and€SonicÐ À  ÐAutomotive€as€additional€defendants,€and€alleged€four€new€causes€of€action€against€all€Defendants:Ð ¬ü  Ð(1)€conspiracy€to€breach€a€contract,€(2)€interference€with€contractual€relations,€(3)€intentionalÐ ˜è  Ðinterference€with€a€business€relationship,€and€(4)€conversion.€€The€Bowers€Defendants€filed€a€MotionÐ „Ô  Ðto€Dismiss€and€for€Reinstatement€of€Award€of€Discretionary€Costs€stating€that€no€causes€of€actionsÐ pÀ Ðstill€remained€against€them.€€In€its€December€2,€1999€Order,€the€court,€again,€refused€to€allowÐ \¬ Ðamendment€to€the€Complaint,€dismissed€the€Bowers€Defendants€from€the€case€and€reinstated€theÐ H˜ Ðaward€of€discretionary€costs.€€This€appeal€ensued.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àPlaintiffs€then€proceeded€to€file€a€separate€action€against€Sonic€Automotive׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€EuropeanÐ  \ ÐMotors€in€chancery€court.€€€This€2000€Complaint€re„alleged€the€four€causes€of€action€previouslyÐ øH Ðasserted€against€Sonic€and€European€in€Plaintiffððs€Third€Amended€Complaint€but€not€allowed€by€theÐ ä4 Ðcircuit€court.€€Upon€motion€of€Defendants,€the€case€was€transferred€to€the€circuit€court€division€thatÐ Ð  Ðoriginally€heard€the€matter.€€€Defendants€then€filed€a€Motion€to€Dismiss,€and€€the€trial€courtÐ ¼  Ðdismissed€the€Complaint€in€its€entirety€by€order€dated€September€26,€2000.€€Plaintiffs€then€alsoÐ ¨ø Ðappealed€the€trial€courtððs€actions€in€dismissing€this€2000€Complaint€against€the€additionalÐ ”ä ÐDefendants.€€The€appeal€from€the€2000€action€was€consolidated€with€the€appeal€already€filedÐ €Ð Ðchallenging€the€trial€courtððs€December€2,€1999€Order.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àPlaintiffs€assert€that€the€trial€court€has€misread€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision,€and€its€own.€Ð D!” ÐThey€allege€that€this€Courtððs€decision€held€in€favor€of€Plaintiffs€and€allowed€an€action€againstÐ 0"€  ÐSuperior,€Hart€and€the€Bowers€Defendants,€as€well€as€the€Sonic€Defendants€and€European€Motors.€Ð #l! ÐWe€disagree€with€Plaintiffsðð€reading€of€the€trial€courtððs€Orders€and€the€Court€of€Appealððs€OpinionÐ $X" Ðand€affirm€trial€courtððs€December€2,€1999€and€September€26,€2000€Orders.Ð ô$D # ЇÓ€ (uH08 ÓØ! !ØÌÓ  Óò òII.à0 @ àà0 @ àà0 @ à€€Correct€Construction€of€the€Previous€Rulingsó óÐ œì ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àOur€first€job€is€to€sort€out€and€clarify€what€has€happened€previously€in€the€trial€court€and€thisÐ tÄ ÐCourt.€€All€parties€agree€that€Hart€and€Superior€were€dismissed€from€the€original€action€based€on€theÐ `° Ðtrial€courtððs€finding€that€the€Agreement€was€too€uncertain€to€be€enforceable.€€This€Court€overturnedÐ L œ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€ruling€with€regard€to€those€Defendants,€finding€that€certain€parts€of€the€contract€mayÐ 8 ˆ Ðbe€enforced.€€This€Court€further€found€that€the€remedy€of€damages€was€available€to€Plaintiffs€againstÐ $ t ÐHart€and€Superior;€thus,€it€was€proper€for€the€trial€court€to€refuse€to€impose€a€constructive€trustÐ  ` Ðagainst€any€third€party€to€whom€the€assets€were€conveyed.€€We€further€affirmed€the€trial€courtððsÐ ü L  Ðrefusal€to€allow€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€Amend,€which€would€have€added€the€additional€claim€ofÐ è 8  Ðinterference€with€prospective€advantage€since,€as€the€trial€court€specifically€noted€in€its€Order,Ð Ô$  ÐTennessee€does€not€recognize€this€cause€of€action.€€This€Courtððs€Opinion€went€on€to€find€that€theÐ À  Ðtrial€courtððs€discretionary€denial€of€leave€to€amend€to€add€European€as€an€additional€defendant€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€an€abuse€of€discretion,€and€we€affirmed€the€same.€€After€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision,€the€onlyÐ ˜è  Ðclaim€left€against€the€Bowers€Defendants€was€inducement€of€breach€of€contract.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court,€in€its€April€28,€1997€Order,€did€not€specifically€state€the€reason€for€findingÐ \¬ Ðno€inducement€of€breach€of€contract,€but€merely€stated€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]sÔ_Ô€a€matter€of€law,€neither€Bowers€norÐ H˜ ÐEuropean€can€be€liable€for€inducement€of€breach€of€contract.ðð€€The€undisputed€facts€showed€that€theÐ 4„ Ðinvolvement€of€Bowers€and€European€came€about€after€Hart€and€Superiorððs€repudiation€and€allegedÐ  p Ðbreach.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€only€mention€in€this€April€28€Order€of€the€trial€courtððs€earlier€decision€granting€Hart€andÐ ä4 ÐSuperiorððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€in€regard€to€the€denial€of€the€equitable€remedy€of€aÐ Ð  Ðconstructive€trust.׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€this€previous€€finding€that€there€was€no€contract€was€only€one€factorÐ ¼  Ðincluded€in€the€trial€courtððs€reasons€for€not€imposing€a€constructive€trust.€€The€court€listed€ð ðabsenceÐ ¨ø Ðof€liability€under€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€47„50„109ðð€as€a€separate€and€additional€reason€for€finding€no€liability€forÐ ”ä Ðinducement€of€breach€of€contract.€€Such€finding€is€not€dependent€on,€and€separate€from,€the€findingÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€contract€was€too€indefinite€to€be€enforceable.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWith€the€foregoing€background€and€understanding,€we€now€turn€to€a€determination€of€theÐ D!” Ðspecific€issues€brought€for€review€by€Plaintiff€in€this€appeal.Ð 0"€  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€Issues€Presented€for€Review€ó óÐ $X" ÐÌÓ,PÓI.à  àWhether€the€Trial€Courtððs€December€2,€1999€Order€dismissing€Plaintiffsðð€claims€against€the€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àBowers€Defendants€is€in€error.Ð Ì&"% ÐII.à  àWhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€reinstating€its€award€of€discretionary€costs€to€the€Bowers€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àDefendants,€after€this€Court€vacated€that€award.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐIII.à  àWhether€the€Trial€Courtððs€December€2,€1999€Order€denying€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€Amend€Ð ° Ðà  àComplaint€in€Accordance€with€Appellate€Courtððs€Opinions€is€in€error.Ð œì ÐIV.à  àWhether€the€Trial€Courtððs€dismissal€of€the€2000€Action€against€European€Motors€and€Sonic€Ð ˆØ Ðà  àAutomotive€is€in€error.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€The€Dismissal€of€the€Bowers€Defendants€on€Remandó óÐ L œ ÐÓ¸SÓÌà  àOn€remand,€the€trial€court€properly€dismissed€the€Bowers€Defendants€from€the€1996€action.€Ð $ t ÐTheir€dismissal€on€remand€by€the€trial€court€was€a€procedural€matter,€as€no€viable€claims€still€existedÐ  ` Ðagainst€them€and€the€trial€court€€was€reinvested€with€powers€to€enforce€its€judgment,€as€modified€byÐ ü L  Ðthe€appellate€court.€€òòÔ_ÔInmanÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ôóó,€840€S.W.2d€927,€932€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€This€CourtÐ è 8  Ðaffirmed€the€previous€dismissal€of€all€appealed€claims€against€the€Bowers€Defendants.€€Review€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€dismissal€of€the€inducement€claim,€which€was€based€on€Defendantsðð€argument€that€theÐ À  ÐAgreement€was€breached€prior€to€Bowers€having€any€knowledge€of€the€Agreement€or€involvementÐ ¬ü  Ðwith€Hart,€was€not€sought.€€The€denial€of€the€request€for€a€constructive€trust€was€affirmed,€and€theÐ ˜è  Ðdenial€of€Plaintiffsðð€prior€Motion€to€Amend€to€add€an€additional€cause€of€action€was€also€affirmed.€Ð „Ô  ÐNo€viable€claims€still€existed€against€the€Bowers€Defendants.òòóó€à È àà  àÐ pÀ ÐÌà8  àA.à ` àòòPlaintiffs€failed€to€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€reason€for€dismissing€the€claim€forÐ H˜ Ðinducement€of€breach€of€contractòòÐ4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àóóóóPlaintiffsðð€claim€for€inducement€of€breach€of€contract€against€the€Bowers€Defendants€wasÐ  \ Ðdismissed€on€the€merits€by€the€trial€court€based€on€the€fact€that€the€Agreement€was€breached€priorÐ øH Ðto€the€Bowers€Defendants€having€any€knowledge€of€the€Agreement€or€entering€into€any€discussionÐ ä4 Ðwith€Hart.€€In€order€to€state€a€claim€for€inducement€of€breach€of€contract,€Plaintiffs€had€to€show:€(1)Ð Ð  Ða€legal€contract,€(2)€Defendantsðð€knowledge€of€the€contract,€(3)€an€intention€to€induce€its€breach,€(4)Ð ¼  Ðmalice,€(5)€breach€of€the€contract,€(6)€proximate€cause€of€the€breach,€and€(7)€damages€resulting€fromÐ ¨ø Ðthe€breach.€€òòSee€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.€v.€William€Morris€Agency,€Inc.óó,€13€S.W.3d€343€(Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐCt.€App.€1999).€€€It€is€obvious€from€the€undisputed€fact€that€Hart€refused€to€perform€the€AgreementÐ €Ð Ðon€the€same€day€it€was€signed,€and€before€the€Bowers€Defendants€knew€anything€about€theÐ l¼ ÐAgreement€or€were€involved€in€negotiations€to€buy€Superior,€that€Plaintiffs€did€not€present€a€primaÐ X ¨ Ðface€case€of€inducement€of€breach.€€The€trial€court€found,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€the€elements€ofÐ D!” Ðinducement€of€breach€of€contract€did€not€exist.€€This€issue€was€not€appealed€to€this€Court€or€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðsupreme€court€as€a€part€of€the€previous€appeal.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àPlaintiffs€now€assert€that€their€appeal€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€Agreement€was€tooÐ ô$D # Ðuncertain€to€be€enforced€was€also€an€appeal€of€the€finding€of€no€liability€for€inducement€of€breachÐ à%0!$ Ðof€contract€as€a€matter€of€law.€€However,€Plaintiffs€did€not€assert€error€in€the€courtððs€determinationÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€ð ðas€a€matter€of€law€neither€the€Bowers€Defendants€nor€European€Motors€can€be€liable€forÐ ¸'#& Ðinducement€of€breach€of€contract,ðð€and€never€specifically€argued€in€their€brief€that€dismissal€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinducement€claim€was€in€error€or€that€the€Bowers€Defendants€had€any€knowledge€of€the€AgreementÐ )à$( Ðprior€to€its€breach.€Appellants,€in€their€brief€on€the€previous€appeal,€specifically€disavowed€that€theirÐ |*Ì%) Ðclaim€for€inducement€to€breach€was€an€issue€on€appeal.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àPlaintiffs€argue€that€this€Courtððs€determination€that€the€contract€was€enforceable€revives€thisÐ ° Ðinducement€claim.€€However,€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€inducement€claim€did€not€rely€uponÐ œì Ðits€separate€determination€that€the€contract€was€unenforceable.€€In€fact,€the€Bowers€DefendantsÐ ˆØ Ðexpressly€assumed€that€the€contract€was€enforceable€for€the€purpose€of€their€Motion€for€SummaryÐ tÄ ÐJudgment.€€Defendantsðð€motion€was,€thus,€granted€on€Plaintiffsðð€failure€to€prove€the€elements€ofÐ `° Ðinducement€as€a€matter€of€law,€i.e.€that€the€Bowers€Defendants€had€any€knowledge€of€the€AgreementÐ L œ Ðprior€to€its€breach.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThis€fact€is€further€evident€upon€review€of€the€Memorandum€in€Support€of€DefendantsÐ  ` ÐNelson€Bowers,€II€and€Bowers€Transportation€Group,€LLCððs€Motion€to€Dismiss€and€forÐ ü L  ÐReinstatement€of€Award€of€Discretionary€Costs€filed€after€remand€to€the€trial€court.€€ThisÐ è 8  ÐMemorandum€makes€the€same€arguments€with€regard€to€interpretation€of€the€trial€courtððs€April€28,Ð Ô$  Ð1997€Order€granting€summary€judgment€to€the€Bowers€Defendants,€analysis€of€the€issuesÐ À  Ðsubsequently€appealed,€and€an€explanation€of€this€Courtððs€Opinion.€€The€trial€court€obviously€agreedÐ ¬ü  Ðwith€Defendantsðð€analysis€of€its€April€28,€1997€order€and€subsequent€decision€by€the€Court€ofÐ ˜è  ÐAppeals€and€dismissed€the€Bowers€Defendants€from€the€case.€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÌà  àIn€order€for€an€issue€to€be€considered€on€appeal,€a€party€must,€in€his€brief,€develop€theÐ \¬ Ðtheories€or€contain€authority€to€support€the€averred€position€as€required€by€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ H˜ ÐAppellate€Procedure€27(a).€€ð ðWhere€a€party€makes€no€legal€argument€and€cites€no€authority€inÐ 4„ Ðsupport€of€a€position,€such€issue€is€deemed€to€be€waived€and€will€not€be€considered€on€appeal.ðð€Ð  p ÐòòÔ_ÔBraunmÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAkinsÔ_Ôóó,€978€S.W.2d€554,€557€n.2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòsee€also€Morris€v.€Ô_ÔSnodgrassÔ_Ôóó,€886Ð  \ ÐS.W.2d€761€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòÔ_ÔMaryvilleÔ_Ô€Housing€Authority€v.€Ramseyóó,€484€S.W.2d€73€(Tenn.Ð øH ÐCt.€App.€1972).€€Courts€have€consistently€held€that€issues€must€be€included€in€the€Statement€of€IssuesÐ ä4 ÐPresented€for€Review€required€by€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€27(a)(4).€€An€issue€notÐ Ð  Ðincluded€is€not€properly€before€the€Court€of€Appeals.à p àÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àPlaintiffs€did€not€mention€the€inducement€claim€in€their€statement€of€the€issues€appealed€andÐ ”ä Ðdid€not€make€any€arguments€regarding€when€the€Agreement€was€breached,€when€Defendants€hadÐ €Ð Ðknowledge€of€the€Agreement,€and€how€Defendantsðð€actions€could€have€proximately€caused€theÐ l¼ Ðbreach.€€The€issues€upon€which€the€trial€court€found€no€inducement€as€a€matter€of€law€were€notÐ X ¨ Ðappealed€to€this€Court.Ð D!” ÐÌÓ€ (ê½80Óà  àB.à ` àòòThe€Law€of€The€CaseóóÐ #l! Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€inÐ ô$D # Ðconformity€with€its€opinion.€€As€there€was€no€mention€of€the€inducement€claim,€nothing€could€beÐ à%0!$ Ðconformed€to€the€opinion€with€respect€to€that€claim.€With€regard€to€those€claims€brought€against€theÐ Ì&"% ÐBowers€Defendants€and€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðaffirmed.€€Thus,€the€determination€made€on€these€matter€becomes€the€ð ðlaw€of€the€case.ððÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€phrase€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€refers€to€a€legal€doctrine€which€generallyÐ |*Ì%) Ðprohibits€reconsideration€of€issues€that€have€already€been€decided€in€a€prior€appealÐ h+¸&* Ðof€the€same€case.€€In€other€words,€under€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine,€an€appellateÐ ° Ðcourtððs€decision€on€an€issue€of€law€is€binding€in€later€trials€and€appeals€of€the€sameÐ œì Ðcase€if€the€facts€on€the€second€trial€or€appeal€are€substantially€the€same€as€the€factsÐ ˆØ Ðin€the€first€trial€or€appeal.€€The€doctrine€applies€to€issues€that€were€actually€before€theÐ tÄ Ðappellate€court€in€the€first€appeal€and€to€issues€that€were€necessarily€decided€byÐ `° Ðimplication.€€The€doctrine€does€not€apply€to€dicta.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€[Ô_ÔI]tÔ_Ô€is€a€longstanding€discretionary€rule€of€judicial€practice€which€is€basedÐ $ t Ðon€the€common€sense€recognition€that€issues€previously€litigated€and€decided€by€aÐ  ` Ðcourt€of€competent€jurisdiction€ordinarily€need€not€be€revisited.€€This€rule€promotesÐ ü L  Ðthe€finality€and€efficiency€of€the€judicial€process,€avoids€indefinite€Ô_ÔrelitigationÔ_Ô€of€theÐ è 8  Ðsame€issue,€fosters€consistent€results€in€the€same€litigation,€and€assures€the€obedienceÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€lower€courts€to€the€decisions€of€appellate€courts.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àTherefore,€when€an€initial€appeal€results€in€a€remand€to€the€trial€court,€theÐ ˜è  Ðdecision€of€the€appellate€court€establishes€the€law€of€the€case€which€generally€mustÐ „Ô  Ðbe€followed€upon€remand€by€the€trial€court,€and€by€an€appellate€court€if€a€secondÐ pÀ Ðappeal€is€taken€from€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€entered€after€remand.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌòòMemphis€Publ.€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€Storage€Tank€Bd.óó,€975€S.W.2d€303,€306Ð 4„ Ð(Tenn.€1998)€(citations€omitted).€€When€a€remanded€cause€has€been€re„entered€on€the€docket,€itÐ  p Ðstands€exactly€as€it€did€when€the€appeal€was€granted,€except€insofar€as€changed€by€the€appellateÐ  \ Ðcourts.€€òòÔ_ÔRahtÔ_Ô€v.€Southern€Ry.€Co.óó,€387€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€2d€781,787€(Tenn.€1965).€€Further,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€Trial€CourtÐ øH Ðon€remand€has€full€powers€to€implement€and€enforce€its€judgment€as€modified.ðð€€€òòÔ_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€óó840€S.W.2dÐ ä4 Ðat€932.€€Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€only€modifications€of€the€trial€courtððs€orders€were€the€€finding€that€certain€terms€in€theÐ ¨ø ÐAgreement€might€be€definite€enough€to€form€a€contract€and€the€determination€to€vacate€the€awardÐ ”ä Ðof€discretionary€costs€subject€to€reinstatement.€€Otherwise€the€case€stood€ð ðexactly€as€it€did€when€theÐ €Ð Ðappeal€was€granted.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔRahtÔ_Ôóó,€387€S.W.2d€at€786.€€No€change€was€made€in€the€trial€courtððs€holding€onÐ l¼ Ðthe€inducement€claim€since€that€issue€was€not€appealed;€thus,€that€claim€stood€as€previouslyÐ X ¨ Ðdetermined€when€the€case€was€remandedòòóó.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€denial€of€the€requestÐ D!” Ðfor€a€constructive€trust€and€the€denial€of€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€Amend€to€add€the€additional€cause€ofÐ 0"€  Ðaction€of€interference€with€prospective€economic€advantage.€€Hence,€as€reentered€on€the€trial€courtððsÐ #l! Ðdocket,€the€Bowers€Defendants€were€already€dismissed€from€the€case€just€as€they€were€prior€to€theÐ $X" Ðappeal.à ` àà ¸ àÐ ô$D # ÐÌÓ  Óò òV.€€Denial€of€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€Amend€the€Complaintó óÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àÓvƒÓØ! !Øòòóóà  àThe€denial€of€a€motion€to€amend€the€pleadings€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourt€and€will€not€be€reversed€absent€a€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) ÐÑ÷+ Ñâ âØ  Øâ âÑ  Ñà8  àUnless€a€trial€court€has€applied€an€incorrect€legal€standard,€or€it€affirmatively€appearsÐ ° Ðâ âon€the€record€that€a€trial€court€abused€its€discretion,€appellate€reversal€is€notÐ œì Ðwarranted.€€Discretion€denotes€the€absence€of€a€hard€and€fast€rule.€€When€invoked€asÐ ˆØ Ða€guide€for€judicial€action,€it€requires€that€the€trial€court€view€the€factualÐ tÄ Ðcircumstances€in€light€of€the€relevant€legal€principles€and€exercise€consideredÐ `° Ðdiscretion€before€reaching€a€conclusion.€€Discretion€should€not€be€arbitrarilyÐ L œ Ðexercised.€€The€applicable€facts€and€law€must€be€given€due€consideration.€€AnÐ 8 ˆ Ðappellate€court€should€not€reverse€for€ð ðabuse€of€discretionðð€a€discretionary€judgmentÐ $ t Ðof€a€trial€court€unless€it€affirmatively€appears€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€wasÐ  ` Ðagainst€logic€or€reasoning,€and€caused€injustice€or€injury€to€the€party€complaining.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐòòÌÔ_ÔBallardÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHerzkeÔ_Ôóó,€924€S.W.2d€652,€661€(Tenn.€1996)€(citations€omitted).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€1993,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€determined€that€the€standard€for€reviewing€aÐ ¬ü  Ðdiscretionary€decision€regarding€amendments€to€a€complaint€in€Tennessee€is€essentially€the€same€asÐ ˜è  Ðthat€articulated€by€the€federal€courts€dealing€with€the€Federal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure.€€ð ðThe€RulesÐ „Ô  Ðput€forth€a€liberal€policy€of€permitting€amendments€in€order€to€ensure€determination€of€claims€onÐ pÀ Ðtheir€merits.€.€.€.€An€abuse€of€discretion€occurs€when€a€district€court€fails€to€state€the€basis€for€itsÐ \¬ Ðdenial€of€a€motion€or€fails€to€consider€the€competing€interests€of€the€parties€and€likelihood€ofÐ H˜ Ðprejudice€to€the€opponent.ðð€€òòHenderson€v.€Bush€Bros.€&€Co.óó,€868€S.W.2d€236,€237€(Tenn.€1993)Ð 4„ Ð(citations€omitted).€€Tennessee€courts€have€also€provided€some€guidelines€to€weigh€in€determiningÐ  p Ðwhether€a€trial€court€has€abused€its€discretion.€€ð ðRule€15[]€sets€out€some€of€the€broad€and€legitimateÐ  \ Ðfactors€a€trial€judge€should€weigh€in€considering€a€Motion€to€Amend:€Undue€delay€in€filing;€lack€ofÐ øH Ðnotice€to€the€opposing€party;€bad€faith€by€the€moving€party,€repeated€failure€to€cure€deficiencies€byÐ ä4 Ðprevious€amendments,€undue€prejudice€to€the€opposing€party€and€futility€of€the€amendment.ðð€Ð Ð  ÐòòÔ_ÔMerrimanÔ_Ô€v.€Smithóó,€599€S.W.2d€548,€559€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÓ€ (Ú¼ 8 ÓÝ"‚é;"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚é;(‘Ýà0  àÔ2Ú¼ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝòòNo€abuse€of€discretion€in€not€allowing€the€causes€of€action€against€the€BowersÐ €Ð ÐDefendantsóó݃é;(‘U‘ÝŒÐl¼` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚#·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚#·¤y’Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2Ú¼ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝRe„assertion€of€causes€of€action€previously€brought݃#·¤y’¦’ÝŒÐD!”¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àAs€Defendantsðð€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€had€been€granted€in€favor€of€the€BowersÐ #l! ÐDefendants€by€the€trial€court€in€its€April€28,€1997€Order€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€did€nothing€to€alterÐ $X" Ðthat€Order€with€regard€to€the€Bowers€Defendants,€when€the€case€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court€theseÐ ô$D # ÐDefendants€were€already€dismissed€from€the€case.€€When€Plaintiffs€made€their€third€Motion€toÐ à%0!$ ÐAmend€and€requested€the€allowance€of€the€Third€Amended€Complaint,€they€re„alleged€the€causesÐ Ì&"% Ðof€action€that€had€previously€been€ruled€on€by€the€trial€court€in€its€summary€judgment€Order€andÐ ¸'#& Ðappealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeals€without€success.€€Since€these€claims€against€the€Bowers€DefendantsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwere€already€determined€by€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals,€the€Law€of€the€Caseòòóó€preventsÐ )à$( Ðre„litigation€of€these€issues.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` à2.à ¸ àòòClaim€for€conversionóóÐ ° ÐÌà  àIn€Plaintiffsðð€First€Amended€Complaint€they€made€the€following€allegations€against€theÐ ˆØ ÐBowers€Defendants:€(1)€That€they€notified€the€Bowers€Defendants€of€their€intent€to€enforce€theÐ tÄ ÐAgreement,€and€in€spite€of€their€intent,€Bowers€induced€breach€of€the€contract€by€offering€to€payÐ `° Ðmore€if€Hart€would€sell€to€them;€(2)€That€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]sÔ_Ô€a€proximate€result€of€the€actions€of€[the€BowersÐ L œ ÐDefendants],€Hart€and€Superior€breached€the€Contract.€.€.€.€[and]€are€liable€for€interference€with€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐContract;ðð€(3)€That€the€Bowers€Defendants€ð ðhave€entered€into€a€contract€to€purchase€the€same€assetsÐ $ t Ðdefendants€has€(sic)€agreed€to€sell€to€plaintiffs.€€As€a€result€.€.€.€this€Court€should€impose€aÐ  ` Ðconstructive€trust€and€equitable€lien€on€such€assets€òòin€the€hands€of€Hart€and€Superioróó€and,€òòifóó€theÐ ü L  Ðassets€are€transferred€to€Bowers€or€Bowers€Transportation,€in€the€hands€of€Bowers€and€BowersÐ è 8  ÐTransportation.ðð€€(emphasis€added)€These€allegations€òòóónever€properly€asserted€a€claim€for€conversionÐ Ô$  Ðagainst€the€Bowers€Defendants€in€the€First€Amended€Complaint.€€The€Bowers€Defendants€were€onlyÐ À  Ðon€notice€that€they€were€being€sued€for€inducement€of€breach€of€contract€and€for€imposition€of€aÐ ¬ü  Ðconstructive€trust€or€equitable€lien€based€upon€this€alleged€inducement.€€Even€under€the€liberal€noticeÐ ˜è  Ðpleading€requirements,€Plaintiffsðð€First€Amended€Complaint€makes€a€claim€for€inducement€only.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€Bowers€Defendants€were€added€to€this€matter€in€September€1996€andÐ \¬ ÐDefendantsðð€Motion€to€Dismiss€was€granted€in€April€1997.€€A€claim€for€conversion€could€have,€andÐ H˜ Ðshould€have,€been€pled€prior€to€the€Summary€Judgment€hearing.€€Plaintiffs€failed€to€cure€thisÐ 4„ Ðdeficiency€in€its€pleading€prior€to€the€summary€judgment€being€granted€and€the€Bowers€DefendantsÐ  p Ðbeing€dismissed€from€€the€case.€€Thus,€it€was€not€an€abuse€of€discretion€for€the€trial€court€to€refuseÐ  \ Ðto€allow€this€claim€òòóóagainst€a€defendant€already€dismissed€from€the€action,€essentially€preventingÐ øH ÐPlaintiffs€from€re„joining€them€in€the€action€and€forcing€them€to€fight€a€new€battle€that€could€haveÐ ä4 Ðbeen€fought€several€years€earlier.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€also€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€courtððs€failure€to€allow€this€claim€against€Hart€andÐ ¨ø ÐSuperior.€€As€with€Bowers,€this€claim€should€have€been€alleged€prior€to€the€hearing€on€DefendantsððÐ ”ä Ðsummary€judgment,€and€we€believe€this€undue€delay€is€ample€reason€to€find€no€abuse€of€discretion.€Ð €Ð ÐHowever,€considering€the€undisputed€fact€that€the€contract€was€breached€prior€to€any€of€the€otherÐ l¼ ÐDefendantsðð€involvement€with€Hart€and€Superior,€we€also€believe€the€amendment€would€be€futileÐ X ¨ Ðand€a€waste€of€time.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` à3.à8 ¸ àòòIt€was€not€abuse€of€discretion€for€the€trial€court€toÐ #l! Ðrefuse€to€allow€the€additional€business€tort€actionsÐ $X" Ðagainst€the€Bowers€DefendantsóóÐô$D #¸ ¸  Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌÒF°Òà  àPlaintiffs€attempted€to€assert€three€new€causes€of€action€against€the€Bowers€Defendants.€Ð Ì&"% Ð1.€€Conspiracy€to€breach€a€contract.€€2.€€Interference€with€contractual€relations.€€3.€€IntentionalÐ ¸'#& Ðinterference€with€a€business€relationship.€€€€First,€These€claims€are€based€on€the€same€facts€as€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðoriginal€inducement€to€breach€the€contract€claim.€€Defendantsðð€actions,€which€were€the€underlyingÐ )à$( Ðbasis€of€the€inducement€claim,€were€considered€by€the€trial€court€in€Bowers€Defendantsðð€MotionÐ |*Ì%) Ðfor€Summary€Judgment€and€found€insufficient€to€state€a€claim€for€inducement.€€€The€ConspiracyÐ h+¸&* Ðand€Interference€claims€would€require€the€same€basic€show€of€facts€that€the€trial€court€foundÐ ° Ðlacking€in€its€April€28,€1997€Order€granting€summary€judgment.€€Thus,€it€would€be€futile€to€addÐ œì Ðthese€additional€claims.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€opinion€does€not€contain€any€suggestion€thatÐ ˆØ ÐPlaintiffs€should€be€allowed€to€amend€their€complaints;€nor€did€this€Court€reverse€the€dismissalÐ tÄ Ðof€any€claims€against€the€Bowers€Defendants.€€Second,€as€with€the€conspiracy€claim,€all€theseÐ `° Ðclaims€could€have,€and€should€have,€been€pled€prior€to€the€Summary€Judgment€hearing.€€As€such,Ð L œ ÐPlaintiffs€failed€to€show€any€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€allow€these€newÐ 8 ˆ Ðclaims€against€the€Bowers€Defendants.Ð $ t ÐòòóóÌØ! !ØÓ€ '( ½0 Óà  àB.à ` àAddition€of€New€Defendants€and€New€Causes€of€ActionÐ ü L  ÐÌÝ"‚#·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚#·¤­Ýà0  àà0` ’"’"àÔ2 ½ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` ’"` ’"àÝ  ÝEuropean€Motors݃#·¤­5­ÝŒÐÔ$ ¸ ’"¸ ’" ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àIn€their€Third€Amended€Complaint,€Plaintiffs€attempted€to,€once€again,€add€EuropeanÐ ¬ü  ÐMotors€as€a€defendant€in€this€matter.€€In€its€April€28,€1997€Order,€the€trial€court€had€already€refusedÐ ˜è  Ðto€grant€Plaintiffsðð€leave€to€amend€the€Complaint€to€add€European€Motors€as€a€defendant.€€In€thatÐ „Ô  ÐOrder,€the€court€specifically€stated€that,€just€like€the€Bowers€Defendants,€European€Motors€was€notÐ pÀ Ðliable€as€a€matter€of€law€for€inducement€of€breach€of€contract.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€thisÐ \¬ Ðfinding€stating€that€there€was€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€leave€to€amend€theÐ H˜ ÐComplaintÔ_Ô.Ô_Ô€€This€determination€became€the€law€of€the€case.€€Plaintiff€is,€thus,€barred€from€re„Ð 4„ Ðasserting€the€claim€for€inducement€of€breach€of€contract€against€European€Motors.Ð  p ÐÌà  àLikewise,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€allow€European€toÐ øH Ðbe€added€as€a€defendant€under€the€newly€averred€causes€of€action,€due€to€the€undue€delay€ofÐ ä4 ÐPlaintiffs€and€futility€of€the€actions.€€As€with€Bowers,€the€conversion,€conspiracy€to€breach€aÐ Ð  Ðcontract,€and€interference€with€contractual€relations€claims€would€be€futile€based€on€the€courtððsÐ ¼  Ðprevious€finding€that€the€contract€was€already€breached.€€Ð ¨ø Ðà@¡¡)¡àˆÌÝ"‚#·¤"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚#·¤´Ýà0  àà0` ’"’"àÔ2 ½ÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` ’"` ’"àÝ  ÝThe€Sonic€Defendants݃#·¤´D´ÝŒÐ€Ð¸ ’"¸ ’" ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àPlaintiffs€also€requested€leave€to€amend€their€complaint€and€add€Sonic€Automotive,€Inc.Ð X ¨ Ðas€an€additional€defendant.€€Against€this€new€defendant,€they€asserted€the€same€causes€of€actionsÐ D!” Ðalready€discussed:€(1)€conspiracy€to€breach€a€contract,€(2)€interference€with€contractual€relations,Ð 0"€  Ð(3)€intentional€interference€with€a€business€relationship,€(4)€inducement€to€breach€a€contract,€andÐ #l! Ð(5)€conversion.€€These€claims€are€based€on€the€same€facts€as€the€original€inducement€to€breachÐ $X" Ðcontract€claim€asserted€against€the€previous€Defendants.€€Defendantsðð€actions,€which€were€theÐ ô$D # Ðunderlying€basis€of€the€inducement€claim,€were€considered€by€the€trial€court€in€BowersÐ à%0!$ ÐDefendantsðð€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€and€it€stands€to€reason€that,€if€the€contract€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðalready€breached€at€the€time€the€Bowers€Defendants€entered€into€negotiations€with€Hart€andÐ ¸'#& ÐSuperior,€the€Agreement€was€already€breached€when€Sonic€Automotive€wandered€into€the€pictureÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsome€years€later.€€As€such,€it€is€evident€that€the€trial€court€considered€all€claims,€based€on€anyÐ )à$( Ðallegation€that€Sonic€somehow€induced,€caused,€conspired,€or€was€otherwise€involved€in€the€breachÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€contract,€futile.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àAlso,€to€maintain€a€claim€for€interference€with€a€business€relationship,€Plaintiffs€wouldÐ ° Ðhave€to€show€that€a€valid€business€relation€or€expectancy€existed,€that€Sonic€knew€of€thatÐ œì Ðrelationship€or€expectancy,€that€they€intended€to€interfere€inducing€or€causing€a€termination€of€thatÐ ˆØ Ðrelationship,€and€resulting€damages.€€òòNew€Life€Corp.€of€Am.€v.€Thomas€Nelson,€Inc.óó,€932€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ð921,€927€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Considering€the€point€at€which€Sonic€entered€into€this€mess,׃*×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€itÐ `° Ðseems€obvious€that€any€notion€that€a€business€relationship€or€expectancy€existed€at€that€time€isÐ L œ Ðabsurd.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAs€for€the€conversion€claim,€we€find€it€equally€futile.€€In€order€to€maintain€a€claim€forÐ  ` Ðconversion,€ð ða€plaintiff€must€show€a€right€to€possession€of€the€item€converted€at€the€time€of€itsÐ ü L  Ðconversion.ðð€€òòMarshall€v.€Ô_ÔBosticÔ_Ôóó,€No.€02A01„9406„CV„00141,€1995€WL€115971€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð è 8  ÐApp.).€€At€the€time€Plaintiffs€attempted€to€add€the€claim€for€conversion,€the€court€had€alreadyÐ Ô$  Ðdetermined€that€no€constructive€trust€could€be€imposed€and€that€Plaintiffsðð€remedy€lay€in€the€formÐ À  Ðof€damages.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àPlaintiffs€make€the€inference€that€this€Court€allowed€them€to€assert€new€claims€againstÐ „Ô  Ðadditional€defendants€when€it€stated€in€its€opinion€that€ð ðPlaintiffs€have€the€remedy€of€recovery€ofÐ pÀ Ðdamages.ðð€€However,€this€statement€was€made€in€connection€with€the€denial€of€the€remedy€ofÐ \¬ Ðconstructive€trust.€€The€opinion€does€not€contain€any€suggestion€that€Plaintiffs€should€be€allowedÐ H˜ Ðto€amend€their€complaints€to€allege€damages€against€any€other€entity.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€notÐ 4„ Ðabuse€it€s€discretion€in€refusing€to€allow€these€claims€against€Sonic€Automotive.Ð  p ÐÌà  àC.€à ` àòòRequest€for€a€constructive€trustóóÐ øH ÐÌà  àIn€their€proposed€Third€Amended€Complaint,€Plaintiffs€again€request€the€remedy€of€aÐ Ð  Ðconstructive€trust€on€the€assets€that€are€the€subject€of€this€litigation.€€This€Courtððs€opinion,Ð ¼  Ðhowever,€already€disposed€of€this€issue€finding€that€it€was€not€error€for€the€trial€court€to€refuse€toÐ ¨ø Ðimpose€a€constructive€trust€on€assets€conveyed€to€a€third€party.€€Thus,€the€denial€of€a€constructiveÐ ”ä Ðtrust€was€appropriate,€no€matter€which€third€party€owns€the€assets.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuseÐ €Ð Ðits€discretion€in€denying€Plaintiffsðð€Motion€to€Amend€the€Complaint€to€re„add€the€remedy€ofÐ l¼ Ðconstructive€trust.à ¸ àà  àà h àò òó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ %(ú½80'Óò òÓ  ÓVIà @ àà @` à.€€à @¸ àDiscretionary€costsó óÐ 0"€  ÐÓ`ÇÓÌà  àThe€trial€court€previously€awarded€discretionary€costs€to€all€Defendants€as€the€prevailingÐ $X" Ðparties.€€The€award€to€the€Bowers€Defendants€was€for€the€cost€of€deposition€transcripts.€€The€CourtÐ ô$D # Ðof€Appeals€held€that€ð ðthe€judgment€for€discretionary€costs€is€vacated,€subject€to€reinstatement,€ifÐ à%0!$ Ðjustified.ðð€€As€the€Bowers€Defendants€are€still€the€prevailing€parties€after€remand,€they€wereÐ Ì&"% Ðentitled€to€discretionary€costs€that€were€shown€to€be€reasonable€and€necessary€in€defending€theÐ ° Ðcase.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€reinstating€the€discretionary€costsÐ œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àÌÓ  Óò òVII.€€à @ àDismissal€of€the€2000€actionó óÐ `° ÐÓÐÊÓÌà8  àððIt€is€a€familiar€principle€that,€when€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€acquiresÐ 8 ˆ Ðjurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter€of€a€case,€its€authority€continues,€òòsubject€onlyÐ $ t Ðto€the€appellate€authorityóó,€until€that€matter€is€finally€and€completely€disposed€of,Ð  ` Ðand€that€no€court€of€coordinate€authority€is€at€liberty€to€interfere€with€its€action.ðð€Ð ü L  Ð14€Ô_ÔAm.JurÔ_Ô.€p.€435,€section€243.€(Italics€those€of€this€Court.)Ðè 8 : :  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€When€a€litigant€is€cast€in€a€lawsuit,€he€has€the€right€of€appeal€to€theÐ À  Ðproper€appellate€tribunal€where€any€error€of€the€lower€court€can€be€corrected.€€HeÐ ¬ü  Ðshould€not€be€permitted€to€run€from€one€court€of€equal€jurisdiction€to€another€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðsame€jurisdiction€and€there€Ô_ÔrelitigateÔ_Ô€the€same€matter.Ð„Ô : :  ÐÌòòÔ_ÔHaleyÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔDoochinÔ_Ôóó,€208€S.W.2d€756,€757€(Tenn.€1948).€€Thus,€the€authority€of€the€circuit€court€overÐ \¬ Ðthese€parties€and€these€issues€continued€at€the€time€the€2000€action€was€filed€by€Plaintiffs€inÐ H˜ Ðchancery€court.€€Once€transferred€back€to€the€circuit€court,€that€court€adhered€to€òòÔ_ÔHaileyÔ_Ô€óóandÐ 4„ Ðdeclined€to€allow€Plaintiffs€to€Ô_ÔrelitigateÔ_Ô€the€same€issues€previously€involved€in€the€circuit€courtÐ  p Ðlitigation.Ð  \ ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àò òVII.€€ConclusionÐ ä4 Ðó óÌÓÙÑÓà  àThis€suit€began€as€an€action€between€Hawkins€and€Ô_ÔGossettÔ_Ô,€on€the€one€hand,€and€PatrickÐ ¼  ÐA.€Hart€and€Superior€Motors,€Inc.,€on€the€other,€for€breach€of€contract.€€It€has€now€been€twiceÐ ¨ø Ðthrough€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€once€through€the€Supreme€Court.€€It€remains€a€suit€between€theÐ ”ä Ðsame€parties€for€breach€of€contract.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€actions€of€the€trial€court€are€in€all€respects€affirmed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€trialÐ X ¨ Ðas€a€breach€of€contract€case.€€Costs€of€this€cause€are€assessed€against€the€appellants€for€whichÐ D!” Ðexecution€may€issues.Ð 0"€  ÐÌÌÔ‡Xô8XXXô8ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÔ#†Xô8XXXô8Õ#Ô