WPC E]E5{_4n;eG&> =\^gTeHtb1@.Q!3ti s9*ֽL3*5$:>X1a.wN¶=xfj/$H"E1I8g!CS`߆'"5l7{yY7mi; ɬnĚ"̥֕ox}|c/majPD!̛'Wޓ #XXM  @!  #M XX #XXM   XXXXInNovember1997,_Inscoe_ԀofferedtopurchaseKemperspropertyin_Hendersonville_,Tennessee. #h" Thecontractpricewassixhundredandfiftythousanddollars($650,000).Theproposedcontract $T# containedseveralhandwrittenconditionsincludingonethatmadethepurchasecontingenton $@ $ _Inscoe_sreceiptofajobofferfromColumbia/_HCA_Ԁatanacceptablelevelofcompensationandjob %,!% title.Atsomepointduringnegotiations,_Inscoe_Ԁdepositedfivethousanddollars($5,000)earnest &"& moneytobeheldinescrowpendingthecompletedsale. '#'   Kemperrejectedthecontractbasedontheconditions._Inscoe_Ԁwasinformedbyherrealestate )$) agent,Mr._Forkum_,thatthecontingencieswereunacceptabletoKemper._Inscoe_Ԁmadeasecondoffer x*%* toKemperatthesameprice.Thisoffercontainedonlythefollowinghandwrittencondition:the d+&+ contractiscontingentuponacceptancebybuyerofasatisfactoryhomeinspectionreportby P,', December15,1997,atwhichtime,buyeragreestodeposit$20,000withRe/MaxChoiceProperties <-(- asadditionalearnestmoney.Accordingto_Inscoe_,_Forkum_ԀdiscussedthenewconditionwithMs.  Mitchell,Kempersrealestateagent._Forkum_ԀandMitchellalsodiscussedthejobcontingencyfrom  thefirstproposedcontract,andMitchellstatedthatit wouldbetotallyunacceptable.OnNovember  17,1997,Kemperaccepted_Inscoe_ssecondofferandsignedthecontract.#XXXX #XXXX t   TheKemperpropertywasinspectedinearlyDecember1997.Theinspectordraftedareport L  onDecember4.#XXXX#XXXXԀThereport gradedeachtopic,withgradesrangingfrom0100,with100beingthe 8  bestandanythingrated60orlowerneedingcorrection,maintenance,orreplacement.Thegrades $ t giventotheKemperpropertyincludedthefollowing:earthwork(40);waterdamage(40);concrete  ` masonry(60);woodsurfaces/substitutes(60);exteriorsiding(40);roofoverhang(40);wood  L  millwork/trim(40);caulking(40);vents(40);finishmaterials/paint/finishes/coatings/treatment  8  (20).Thereportalsolistedseveralotherproblems.Despitethenumerousproblemslistedinthe $  report,theinspectorclassifiedthehouseassomewherebetweengoodandaverage.     Afterreviewingtheinspectorsreport,the_Inscoes_Ԁdecidedthatthehousewasnot   satisfactory.OnDecember15,1997,_Inscoe_shusbandwroteto_Forkum_Ԁthatbecauseofitemsinthe   homeinspectionreport,the_Inscoes_Ԁdidnotplantogoforwardwiththepurchase.When_Forkum_ p contactedMitchellwiththisinformation,hewastoldthatitwasunacceptablebecausetheinspection \ reportwassatisfactory.Shortlythereafter,Kempersattorneycontactedthe_Inscoes_Ԁandinformed H themthatthecontractwasinfullforceandeffect. 4   InJanuary1998,_Inscoe_Ԁlearnedthatshewouldnotreceivetheposition_with_ԀColombia/_HCA_.  \ ShewrotetoKempersattorneyseekingreleaseoftheearnestmoney.Themoneywasnotreturned. H Thereafter,_Inscoe_ԀinitiatedsuitintheSumnerCountyChanceryCourtonDecember23,1998._Inscoe_ 4 soughtreturnofthefivethousanddollar($5,000)earnestmoneyasprovidedforunderthecontract.   Kemperfiledacountercomplaintseekingspecificperformanceofthecontract.Beforethecasewent   totrial,Kempersoldthepropertytoanotherbuyerandamendedhercomplainttoseekmoney  damages.    AnonjurytrialonthecomplaintandcountercomplaintwasheldonSeptember7,1999. l Attrial,testimonybythe_Inscoes_Ԁindicatedtheybelievedthecontingencymeantthehomeinspection X  reportmustbe satisfactorytothemasbuyers.#XXXX#XXXXԀInaddition,Mr._Inscoe_Ԁtestifiedthatalthoughhe D! perceivedthecontingencyasanescapeclause,itwasnotusedassuch.Mrs._Inscoe_Ԁtestifiedthat 0"  sheandherhusbandweregenuinelydissatisfiedwiththefindinginthereportanddidnotwishto #l! proceedwiththesaleonthatbasis._Forkum_,the_Inscoes_agent,testifiedthatthelanguageinthe $X" contingencymeantsatisfactorytothe_Inscoes_. $D #   The_Kempers_realestateagent,Mitchell,testifiedthatthehomeinspectionreportclausewas &"% confusing.Accordingtotheagent,theclausemeanta satisfactoryhomeinspectionreportrather '#& than satisfactorytothebuyers.Thiscontradictedherdepositiontestimonyduringwhichshehad (#' statedthatthelanguagenormallymeant satisfactorytothebuyers.Inaddition,shetestifiedthat )$(  itwasnotintendedasanescapeclauseif_Inscoe_ԀdidnotreceiveajobofferwithColombia/_HCA_. |*%) Mrs.Kemperstestimonyindicatedthatsheinterpretedtheclauseasrequiringa satisfactoryhome  inspectionreport.   #XXXX} #XXXX  ByorderenteredSeptember17,1999,thecourtdismissedboththecomplaintandcounter t complaint,holdingtherewasnoenforceablecontractbecause_Inscoe_spromisetobuywasillusory. ` Inaddition,thecourtfoundtherewasnomeetingofthemindsbetweenthepartiesbasedonthe L  disputedmeaningofthecontingencyinthecontract.Kemperwasorderedtoreturn_Inscoe_searnest 8  moneyandthepartieswereorderedtoequallydividethecourtcosts.Kemperappeals.  $ t    `     h       Analysis  L   #XXXX&#XXXX    Thestandardofreviewforanonjurycaseisdenovoupontherecord.Wrightv.Cityof $  Knoxville,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995).Thereisapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrial   courtsfactualfindings,unlessthe preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.T#M XX{ #UM ENN#M U+#XXM .R.A#M XX2,#UM PP#M Uz,#XXM .P.   Rule13(d).Forissuesoflaw,thestandardofreviewisdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectness.   _Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996).#XXXXJ*#XXXXԀInthecaseatbar,theonly   issuesinvolvethe_enforceability_Ԁofthecontractaswellastheinterpretationofcertainprovisionsin p thecontractenteredintobytheparties.#XXXX-#XXXXTheinterpretationofawrittenagreementisamatteroflaw \ andnotoffact,therefore,ourreviewisdenovoontherecordwithnopresumptionofthecorrectness H ofthetrialcourt'sconclusionsoflaw.UnionPlanters_Nat'l_ԀBankv.AmericanHomeAssuranceCo., 4 865S.W.2d907,912(Tenn.App.1993).#XXXX:/#XXXX  p   Uponconsiderationoftherecordandthepartiesargument,wehavedeterminedthecasemay H beresolvedononeissue:theabsenceofameetingofthemindsofthepartiesbasedonthe 4 ambiguouslanguageofthecontingency.Accordingly,ourdiscussionwillbelimitedtothisissue.   #XXXX 1#XXXX   SatisfactoryHomeInspectionReport       Onappeal,_Inscoe_ԀarguesthattheobligationtopurchaseKempershomewasconditionedon l thereceiptofasatisfactoryhomeinspectionreport._Inscoe_Ԁassertsthatsinceshefoundthereport X  unsatisfactory,theconditionprecedentwasnotmetandherobligationtobuywasnottriggered. D! Kemperarguesthatthereportwassatisfactoryandtherefore_Inscoe_sobligationtobuywas 0"  triggered.Bothoftheseargumentscenteronthemeaningofa satisfactoryhomeinspectionreport. #l! Baseduponthefollowing,wefindthatthecontracttermwasambiguousandpreventedameeting $X" ofthemindsbetweentheparties. $D #   Theprimaryruleininterpretingcontractsistoascertaintheintentionofthepartiesfromthe &"% contractasawholeandtogiveeffecttothatintentionconsistentwithlegalprinciples._Winfree_Ԁv. '#& EducatorsCreditUnion,900S.W.2d285,289(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);_Rainey_Ԁv._Stansell_,836 (#' S.W.2d117,118(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Inconstruingcontracts,thewordsexpressingtheparties' )$( intentionsshouldbegiventheirusual,natural,andordinarymeaning.Taylorv.WhiteStores,Inc., |*%) 707S.W.2d514,516(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Intheabsenceoffraudormistake,acontractmustbe h+&* interpretedandenforcedaswritten,eventhoughitcontainstermswhichmayseemharshorunjust.  _Heyer_-Jordan&_Assocs_.v.Jordan,801S.W.2d814,821(_Tenn.App_.1990).  #XXXX2#XXXX  Anambiguityinacontractischaracterizedasdoubtoruncertaintyarisingfromthe t possibilityofthesamelanguagebeingfairlyunderstoodinmorewaysthanone.Hillisv.Powers, ` 875S.W.2d273,276(Tenn.App.1993).Whenacontracttermisambiguoustherewasno meeting L  oftheminds.Acontractisunenforceablewhenthereisnomeetingofthemindsormutualassent 8  bytheparties._Jamestowne_ԀOnSignal,Inc.v.FirstFederal_Sav_.&Loan_Ass'n_#XXXX^;#XXXXԀ807S.W.2d559,at $ t 564(Tenn.Ct.App.1990)citing#XXXX7>#XXXXJohnsonv.CentralNationalIns.Co.ofOmaha,Neb.,356S.W.2d  ` 277,281#XXXX>#XXXX (Tenn.1961)#XXXXg?#XXXX #XXXX?#XXXXWiththeforegoinginmind,wenowturntothecontracttermatissueinthis  L  case.#XXXX@#XXXX    <    Thecontingencyplacedintherealestatecontractconditionedthesaleonthebuyers   acceptanceofa satisfactoryhomeinspectionreport.Attrial,boththepartiesandtheparties   agentsofferedconflictinginterpretationsofthelanguage.The_Inscoes_Ԁandtheiragentbelievedit   meantareportthatwassubjectivelysatisfactorytothemselvesas#XXXX@#XXXXthebuyers.The_Kempers_Ԁandtheir   agentbelieveditmeantanobjectivelysatisfactoryreport.Itisapparentfromtheseinconsistencies t thatthepartiesdidnotsharethesameunderstandingaboutthemeaningofthecontingency.Upon ` review,weholdthatthelanguagecouldbeinterpretedeitherway.Accordingly,therewasno L meetingofthemindsbetweenthepartiesandthe contractcannotbeenforced.Therefore,thetrial 8 courtdidnoterronthisissue. (x   Conclusion P     Fortheforegoingreasons,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisherebyaffirmed.Costsof ( appealaretaxedtoAppellant,KathleenKemper,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.#XXXXB#XXXX   #XXXXF#XXXX   #XXXXG#XXXX     #XXXXWG#XXXX   #XXXXG##M XX,#XXM    `     h     ___________________________________ $L #    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE