WPC? @/nD_~xoߑȄi~`iueB{)'o+Y.6ݞ**>{AZqG9hljꞸ,{&A%d3m[Z4 0 0 0 03 0F 0Y 0l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0:& 0\' 0( 0<( 0 <( 0< ) 0F) 0^) 0* 0:+N+ 0.-U>- !.  1. ;.  K. U.  e. o.  . .  . .  . .  . . . D+. A$/@ /o/  \0 f0@ x0o0 (1  71 A1  S1 _1 q1  1 1  1 V1 2 V2 k2 }2 B2 0C2%2UD6#^6 1e9 79 1e9 7Y: g: 0y: B-{; B;; 0;#o<UN0> %~>M>(>N>^ > 1u> 723?we?4i?}? m?\  `&Times New Roman'  LA satisfied Microsoft Office User0mblaylock .   2[+[ 0_level1   , 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level2   X 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level3    8.4` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level4    8.` ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level5    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level6    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level9    8.<` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl1   , 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl2   X 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl3    8.4` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl4    8.` ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl5    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl6    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl9    8.<` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl1   , 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl2   X 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl3    8.4` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl4    8.` ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl5    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl6    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl9    8.<` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  6< /4Heading 1  XXX        6? 24Heading 2  XXX          6& 4Heading 3XXX   <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref< :Footnote Tex<;; :Body Text In  X XXX       X 6// 4Body Text  XXX      0A .Footer  (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number  )GT)..      adXaXdad  _!  (#X!'  XcXd*XcXXXc&$  (# X$  &  ')  *dX*Xcd*d(2GT$ _ WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a8Text11B WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a_Opinion_Summarya9Text13a10Text14Text15a11Text16a12a_Appellant_s_Attorney_Name___Appellant_Text18a_Appellee_s_Attorney_Name___Appellee_s_Text19QuickMark d($      _ XcX^^XXc % , %,.% - -  PAULE.JOHNSON-  %-LԀv.% . %.% / -  THEMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENTOF 0 NASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTY,TENNESSEE,ANDLESTERL.  < WILLIAMS,JR.,DIRECTOROFTHEDEPARTMENTOFWATERAND  H SEWERAGESERVICESOFTHEMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENTOF  T NASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTY-  %/.XcX^   `  % 0 %0T% 1 -  Ԁ-  %1rԀAppealfromthe% 2 %2% 3 Chancery%3ԀCourtfor% 4 %4% 5 -  Davidson-  %5,ԀCounty R  No.% 6 %6% 7 991886II%7Ԁ% 8 %8% 9 -  CarolMcCoy-  %9,% : -  Chancellor-  %:8 8  -  dXXc <=k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE K K2 -  XcXd No.% ? %?% @ -  M200100633COAR3CV-  %@ԀFiledAugust7,_2002_  -  dXXc <Ak[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE[ K K[2 -  XcXd  % C   %C PaulE.Johnson,aNashvillerealestatedeveloper,filedacomplaintdemandingarefundfor 6 seweraccessfeespaidtotheMetropolitanDepartmentofWaterandSewerageServices.A l counterclaimwasfiledbyMetroallegingMr.Johnsonexecutedavalidcontracttocontribute R $1,000,000towardtheconstructionoftheMillCreeksewertrunkline,lessthenetamountof 8 anyexcessaccessfeespaidunderapreviousagreement.Mr.Johnsondeniedtheexistenceofa  contracttosharethecostofextendingthetrunksewerlink.ThetrialcourtdismissedMr.  JohnsonsclaimsandenteredjudgmentinfavoroftheMetropolitanDepartmentofWaterand  SewerageServicesfor$688,942.88.Mr.Johnsonappealed.    % D %D+% E -  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight-  %EI;Judgmentofthe% F %F% G -  ChanceryCourt L Affirmed-  %G 2    % H -  Ash-  %HY,S.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% I %IBenH.% J -  Cantrell-  %J,_P.J._,M.S.,and% K %K]Patricia !N! CottrellJ.,joined. "4" % L %L% M CarolD._Kilgore_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,PaulE.Johnson-  .-  %M $ $ % N %N% O -  ThomasG.Cross,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,TheMetropolitanGovernmentof |&!& NashvilleandDavidsonCounty,Tennessee.-  %O  b'"' _  OPINION    % P %PI.Background |   Q l<`  XIn1988,PaulE.Johnson( Johnson/ thedeveloper),aNashvillerealestatedeveloper, H soughtseweraccessforaparceloflandthatwaseventuallydevelopedastheBradfordHillsand . ~ HoltWoodssubdivisions.ThispropertynaturallydrainsintoMillCreek,atributaryofthe  d CumberlandRiver.TheMetropolitanDepartmentofWaterandSewerageServices( Metro)  J informedJohnsonthesewerlinenearesttheproperty,knownastheWhittemoreBranchsewer,  0 wasnearingcapacity.Theincreasedflowfromtheproposeddevelopmentwouldencroachupon    thelimitedcapacityoftheWhittemoreBranchnaturaldrainagebasinandwouldrequirethe    constructionofadditionalpumpingstationsandforcemains.HaroldDelk,Johnsonsengineer   andagentforsewerprojectnegotiations,wrotetoMetroonAugust1,1988,andagreedforthe x  developertopay$1,000perlotinlieuofthepresent$500perlotaccesscharge,tohelpfinance ^  anynecessaryenlargementsorextensionsoftheWhittemoretrunklineandconstructionofa D  newMillCreekHoltCreektrunksewer."  dhXcXcXdS R  1     "f_  dhXcTd,dԀTXcX,TdXcXhTXcCorrespondencefromMetroDirectorBuddyWilliams *z  toHaroldDelk,datedMarch17,1989clarifiedthe$1,000accessfeeproposedbyDelkby ` designating$500asparticipationintheconstructionoftheMillCreeksewertrunkand$500as F thesewerchargeauthorizedbytheMetropolitanCouncilthroughtheMetroCharter.Mr.Delks , letterinresponsedatedMarch22,1989acceptedthetermsoftheWhittemoreAgreement.  JohnsondevelopedBradfordHillsandHoltWoodssubdivisionsasplannedandpaidMetro  $394,500overthesucceedingyearspursuanttotheWhittemoreAgreement.   t  X  JohnsonoriginallyplannedtoengageacontractortocompletetheMillCreeksewer Z extension,andMetrowouldcontributefundsforpartofthecost.Johnsonsolicitedbidsforthe @ projectbutultimatelyrejectedthem.Thedeveloperdecidednottoundertaketheconstructionof &v theMillCreektrunkbyhimself.OnMarch2,1994,MetrowroteJohnsonregardinghis  \ participationintheMillCreektrunksewer.Metroacknowledgedtheyhadnoobjectionto B cappingJohnsonsparticipationat$1,000,000towardthecostoftheproject,lesscreditforthe ( netamountpreviouslypaidforexcesscapacityfeesundertheWhittemoreAgreement.Mr.  JohnsonwroteMetroonOctober17,1994inordertomemorializethetermsoftheMillCreek  Agreementinasingledocumentthataccuratelyreflectedthedetailsoftheirunderstanding.   Johnsonmodifiedtheoutlinedformalagreementandsignedtheletterindicatinghisacceptance p!  ofthetermssetforththerein.Healsostatedhewouldneitherbesubjectto,northebeneficiary V"! of,anysubsequentbasisimpactfeesorparticipationbyotherusersoftheproposedsewer <#" system,andallconstructionworkonphaseonewouldincludeplansbyAndersonDelkand "$r# Associates,Inc.approvedbytheWaterDepartmentonJune14,1993.Theagreementbythe %X $  partieswassubjecttoconstructionofthesewerbeginningnotlaterthanJune1,1995.TheMill %>!% CreekAgreementwasalsocontingentuponapprovaloftheMetropolitanCouncil."  U R  2     "#ess  Metro   repliedtoJohnsonsofferbyletterdatedDecember27,1994aswrittenconfirmationof  acceptanceofthedeveloperslatestmodifications.However,MetrocautionedJohnsonthe | projectinvolvedcomplexpreliminaryreviewofenvironmentalandarcheologicalissues. b Consequently,theycouldnotguaranteeconstructionoftheprojectwouldbeginbyJune1,1995. H OnJune8,1995,aftertheexpirationoftheJune1,1995deadlineforbeginningconstruction . ~ expired,JohnsonvoluntarilywroteMetroandofferedtoextendthedatetobeginconstruction  d untilAugust15,1995.WhenconstructionhadnotbegunbyAugust15,1995,Johnsonagain  J wrotetoMetroonAugust30,1995,stating, iftheMillCreekSewercannotbeadvertisedfor  0 bidsbySeptember15,1995,Iwillhavenochoicebuttowithdrawmyofferofonemillion    dollarsfortheconstructionofthisproject.MetroadvertisedtheprojectforbidsonSeptember    3,1995.MetrothenconductedaprebidmeetingattendedbyJohnsonsengineer,HaroldDelk.   Thepartiesdidnothaveanydirectcontactwitheachotherafterthismeeting. x   X ^  ExcavationworkbeganinAprilof1996.Johnsonobservedtheconstructionofthe D  projectthroughoutuntilitscompletionapproximatelythreeyearslater.Thesequencefor *z  constructionoftheprojectallowedMr.JohnsontoconnecttheBradfordHillsandHoltWoods ` subdivisionstothesewernearlyoneyearbeforetheprojectwascompleted.Johnsondidnot F contributeanythingtothefundingoftheMillCreekextensionpursuanttotheagreementwith , Metroandreflectedinordinancenumber092384.Furthermore,thedeveloperdemandeda  refundoftheexcessaccessfeespaidundertheWhittemoreAgreementfourmonthsafterthe  BradfordHillsandHoltWoodssubdivisionswereconnectedtothesewer.Metrocompletedthe  projectshortlythereafterandrequestedJohnsonpaytheoutstandingbalanceundertheMill t CreekAgreement.Thedeveloperclaimedanyobligationhemayhavehadtomakesuch Z paymentsterminatedAugust15,1995becauseconstructionwasdelayed.Johnsonfileda @ complaintdemandingarefundfortheseweraccessfees.Metrocounterclaimedseeking &v enforcementoftheMillCreekAgreementaseitheraunilateralorbilateralcontractorunder  \ unjustenrichmentorpromissoryestoppeltheories.Johnsondeniedtheexistenceofacontractto B sharethecostofextendingatrunksewerlinkandclaimedtheexcessaccessfeeswerepaid ( underextortionorduress.    Thetrialcourtmadethefollowingfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw:First,   JohnsonsclaimthathisobligationterminatedonAugust15,1995ignoredtheexistenceofa p!  contractwithMetroonthatdate.Second,anordinancewaspassed,andJohnsonwasnot V"! entitledtocancelthecontractbyhissilence.Third,Johnsonmayhavebeeninapositionto <#" cancelthecontracthadheactedaffirmatively.However,Johnsonunilaterallyandvoluntarily "$r# demandedbidsbeletbySeptember16,1995,andMetrocompliedwiththisdemand. %X $ Consequently,Metrowasinapositiontohaveabindingcontractatthattimedespitethefact %>!% constructionhadnotstarted.Johnsonssilenceandacquiescencewaivedtheprovisionrequiring &$"& constructiontobeginbyAugust15,1995.Fourth,JohnsoncontinuedtoparticipateintheMill ' #' CreekBranchextensioninaccordancewiththetermsoftheagreementwithMetroexceptforthe (#( paymentoftheadditionalmonieshehadpromised.Fifth,itwasevidentfromproofthatJohnson )$) greatlydesiredtheMillCreekBranchextension.Withouthispromiseof$1,000,000,the  extensionwouldnothavegoneforwardonatimelybasis,benefitingJohnson.Sixth,Metrodid  notcoerceJohnsontoentertheagreement,norwastheagreementvoidforduress.Anyduress | feltbyJohnsonwastheresultofhisacquisitionofaparceloflandfordevelopmentwithoutprior b inquiryregardingsewercapacityoravailability.Seventh,Johnsonsproposedpaymenttoward H thedevelopmentoftheMillCreekBranchwasproperlymadeandacceptedinaccordancewith . ~ Metrocode15.36.040regardingdeveloperswhowishtofundconstructionorexpansionof  d trunksewers.Theparticipationinthedevelopmentcametofruitionoveraperiodofyears,  J beginningwitha$500perunitpaymentthatwaslatersupplementedbytheofferof$1,000,000  0 cappingJohnsonscontribution.        ThetrialcourtfoundtherewasacontractobligatingJohnsontopay$1,000,000.This   agreementwasappropriatelyauthorizedbyWilliamsonbehalfoftheMetropolitanGovernment x  andthecontractwasproperlyratifiedbytheMetropolitanCouncilbyitsordinance.The ^  requirementsthatcontractualobligationsbesworntoandexecutedbytheparticipatingparties D  wereformalitieswaivedbybothparties.Johnsonsactionsratifiedtheagreement,wherehe *z  requestedthefundspreviouslypaidtoMetroinexcessof$300,000beappliedtowardshis ` $1,000,000obligation.Johnsonwasgivencreditaccordingly.Thetrialcourtemphasizedthese F partiesenteredintoacontractualagreementandconcludedMetrowasnotentitledtoequitable , relieforrecoveryunderatheoryofpromissoryestoppelorimpliedcontract.Thetrialcourt  ultimatelydismissedJohnsonsclaimsandenteredjudgmentinfavorofMetrofor$688,942.88.  Johnsonappealed.   X  XcXXXc      &  >  II.StatementofIssues>? e>Ԍ @ Ќ    XcXXXc    '@>%  XcXXXc    %?    Thefollowingissuesarebeforethecourt:(A)Whetherthetrialcourtproperly  \ determinedJohnsonbreachedavalidandbindingcontractrequiringhimtopayanagreed B amounttoMetrotowardthecostofextendingtheMillCreektrunksewer;and(B)Whetherthe ( trialcourtshouldhavedeterminedJohnsonwasliable,intheabsenceofabindingcontract,  underprinciplespromissoryestoppelorimpliedcontract.%?3@݌  Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc      &  B  III.AnalysisB)C eCԌ V"! Ќ    XcXXXc    'V"C V (03gdXXc""   ,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#BXcXd D2  A  .3   4   WhetherthetrialcourtproperlydeterminedJohnsonbreachedavalidand "$r# bindingcontractrequiringthedevelopertopayanagreedamounttowardthe %X $ costofextendingtheMillCreektrunksewer.DE݌ %>!% Ќ  ' X(#44` X(#'   dXXc %  XcXd    ,E.` hp x (#X(#E%G  %GHH݌̌    dXXc    XcXd     X ,& # H  Johnsonassertsthetrialcourterredindetermininghebreachedavalidandbinding ' #' contractobligatinghimtopaythebalanceowingunderanoffertocontribute$1,000,000tothe (#( extensionoftheMillCreektrunksewer.Instead,thedeveloperargueshisunilateralofferto )$) participateinthesewerextensionprojectexpiredwhenconstructiondidnotbeginonAugust15, l*%* 1995andheisentitledtoarefundof$395,000previouslypaidtoMetro.Johnsonspecifically R+&+ challengestheenforceabilityoftheagreementunderfourtheories:  HJI  IԌ 8,', Ќ    dXXc    X  '#'>I -n(- ""   XE.` hp x (#X(#E   X  ?( hp x (#X(#?& = XcXdL2  1  .3     WhetherthetrialcourterredbyholdingJohnsonbecamecontractually  boundaftertheMetropolitanCouncilpassedordinancenumber092384  approvingthedevelopersunilateralofferonAugust3,1995,eventhough | MetrodidnotcommenceconstructionbyAugust15,1995,orbyanyother b datedictatedbythetimepressuresofthedevelopersbusiness.LM݌ H Ќ  ' X(#  X(#'   dXXc  '=M""   XE.` hp x (#X(#E   X  ?( hp x (#X(#?&  XcXdP2  2  .3     WhetherthetrialcourterredinholdingJohnsonbecamecontractually  = boundbyvirtueofhiswritingofAugust30,1995,wherehethreatenedto  # terminatehisparticipationintheMillCreeksewerextensionunlessMetro   advertisedtheprojectforbidsbySeptember15,1995,followedby    MetrosadvertisementonSeptember3,1995,whensuchadvertisement    wasnotproventohavebeenpublishedinresponsetothedevelopers k  letter,andwhenbidadvertisementwasnotavaluablebenefitsoughtby Q  Johnsonbutmerelyapreparatoryactessentialtothecommencementof 7  construction,whenthetenorofthedevelopersAugust30,1995letterdid m  notreaffirmhispriorexpiredoffernorincorporateitbyreference,and S  Metrodidnotinformhimthatithadadvertisedtheprojectnorseekany 9 extensionofthedaterequiredforthecommencementofconstruction.PQ݌  Ќ  ' X(#  X(#'   dXXc  '  Q""   XE.` hp x (#X(#E   X  ?( hp x (#X(#?& = XcXdMW2  3  .3     WhetherthetrialcourterredinholdingJohnsonwascontractuallybound t uponthetheorythatametroordinanceprovisionauthorizedtheWaterand Z SewerDepartmentDirectortoenterintothecontractualarrangementwith @ thedeveloper,wheretheunderstanding,assetoutincorrespondence,did &v notconformtotherequirementsofthecitedMetroprovision.MWyX݌  \ Ќ  ' X(#  X(#'   dXXc  '=tNX""   XE.` hp x (#X(#E   X  ?( hp x (#X(#?&  XcXdM[2  4  .3     WhetherthetrialcourterredinrejectingJohnsonsclaimofarighttoa  refundoftheunauthorizedsewerconnectionchargesof$500perlot,plus  interest,imposeduponhiminadditiontothe$500capacityfeeauthorized } bytheMetroCode,whereJohnsonpaidsuchamountstotaling$395,000as c theonlywayhecouldgetsewerservice,butinsistedtheamountswere I paidunderduress.M[y\݌ / Ќ  ' X(#  X(#'   dXXc  XcXd     Xd_  d__ _Ԍ  e Ќ    dXXc    XcXd     s`  Incontrast,Metroarguesthisdisputeisasimplebreachofcontractcase.Metrosuggests  K  theMillCreekagreementcanbeconstruedaseitherabilateralcontractbasedontheparties !1! exchangeofpromises,oraunilateralcontractarisingfromJohnsonsofferandMetros "" acceptancebyperformance.s`` `Ԍ ## Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    X ,E.` hp x (#X(#E%b  ' N\%bc݌̌    dXXc  %  XcXd    ,%-d  Thecourtwilladdresseachofthesequestionsinturn.%-dd݌ y% % Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    , ,%Se  %See݌̌    dXXc  %  XcXd      %!% theoffereetoaccepteitherbypromisingtoperformwhattheofferrequestsorbyrendering &$"& performance,astheoffereechooses.Thus,theMillCreekagreementmaybeviewedasa ' #' bilateralagreement,whereMetrosDecember27,1994letteracceptingtheofferposedin (#( JohnsonsOctober17,1994lettercreatedacontractthatboundbothpartiesatthattime.These )$) itemsofcorrespondencereflecttheassentofbothpartiestotheessentialtermsoftheagreement. l*%* =yy yԌ     XcXXXc  XdXXc'S x 8,',   XcXd     X& q    ThiscourtaffirmsthetrialcourtsholdingJohnsonbecamecontractuallyboundafterthe   MetropolitanCouncilpassedordinancenumber092384approvingthedevelopersofferto  participateintheMillCreeksewerextension. cWԌ | Ќ    dXXc  X'q}%  XcXd      %q  2.@..Mr.JohnsonsAugust30,1995WritingThreateningtoTerminateParticipation%qς݌ 0 Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    XE.` hp x (#X(#E%ȃ  %ȃm݌̌    dXXc  %  XcXd    X X%  JohnsonconcedestheChancellorcorrectlyruledtheofferwasvoluntarilyreinstatedby   hiswritingextendingthedateforthecommencementofconstructionuntilAugust15,1995.   However,thedeveloperchallengesthetrialcourtsdeterminationhissubsequentwriting x   demandingbidsbeletbySeptember15,1995,orhewouldwithdrawhisofferof$1,000,000, ^   kepttheagreementalive.Mr.Johnsonmaintainsthemerereferraltoapriorcontractoroffer D  doesnotincorporatethesamebyreferenceorrestatetheoldoffer.Friersonv.International *z  AgriculturalCorp.,148S.W.2d27(Tenn.Ct.App.1940).Thedeveloperinsiststhetenorofthis `  writingdidnotreaffirmhispriorexpiredoffernorincorporateitbyreference.Thiscourtfinds F  Johnsonswriting,andMetroscompliancewiththisdemand,supporttheexistenceofthe ,  contract.Whenoffershavebeenmade,andtheactionsofbothpartiesindicatetheybelieve  thereisacontract,thistendstocompeltheconclusionacontractexists.APCOAmusementCo.  v.WilkinsFamilyRestaurants,Inc.,673S.W.2d523(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).%V݌  Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    %.  %.݌ t Ќ    dXXc    XcXd     & \   Johnsoncomplainstheadvertisementwasnotproventohavebeenpublishedinresponse Z tohisAugust30,1995demand,Metrodidnotinformhimthatithadadvertisedtheprojectfor @ bids,norseekanyextensionofthedaterequiredforthecommencementofconstruction.His &v demandforadvertisementoftheprojectforbidsdidnotincludenotificationofcompliance.  \ Furthermore,thedevelopersargumentalsooverlooksthetrialcourtsconclusionhiswriting B constitutedacquiescenceandwaiveroftheprovisionrequiringconstructionbeginbyAugust15, ( 1995.Vestedbilateralcontractrightsmaybewaived,suchaswhereasellerhasadutytoship  byastateddateandthebuyerhasarighttohavethegoodsshippedbythatdate.Thebuyermay  waivehisvestedrightbycontinuingtodemandshipmentafterthebreachoccurred.Petwayv.  LoewsNashville&KnoxvilleCorp.,117S.W.2d975(Tenn.Ct.App.1938).Metrohadaduty p tobeginconstructionoftheMillCreeksewerextensionbyAugust15,1995.Johnsonhada V vestedrighttoperformanceonthisdate.MetrobreachedthetermsoftheMillCreekagreement <  whenconstructiondidnotcommencebythestateddateforperformance.However,Johnson "!r  waivedhisrighttoperformancebyAugust15,1995whenhewroteMetroanddemandedthe "X! projectbeadvertisedforbidsbySeptember15,1995 orhewouldwithdrawhisofferof ">" $1,000,000.Thetimeforperformanceisconvertedtoareasonabletimewhenwaiverofthe #$# timeforperformancepursuanttoabilateralcontractoccurs.Thepartyentitledtoperformance $ $ mayestablishanewperformancedeadlinebygivingreasonablenoticeofthisrequirement. % % Thompsonv.Menefee,6Tenn.App.118(Tenn.Ct.App.1927).Consequently,Metrowas &!& obligatedtocommenceconstructionoftheMillCreeksewerextensionwithinareasonabletime l'"' ratherthansomeunspecifieddatedictatedbythetimepressuresofthedevelopersbusiness. R(#( TheprojectwasadvertisedforbidsonSeptember3,1995.Thebidswereevaluated,acontractor 8)$) wasselectedandexcavationworkfortheMillCreeksewerextensionbeganinAprilof1996. *n%* ThiscourtfindsconstructioncommencedwithinareasonabletimeafterJohnsonsdemandfor +T&+ theprojecttobeadvertisedforbids.z cVԌ +:', Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    X XE.` hp x (#X(#E%  '\Zn%݌ , (- Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    X X%T  NoristhecourtpersuadedbyJohnsonsargumentthatadvertisementforbidswasmerely  apreparatoryactconferringnobenefitonthedeveloper.JohnsoncomparesthiscasetoSavage  v.SpurDistributingCo.,228S.W.2d122(Tenn.Ct.App.1949),acaseconsideringan | individualpromisedpermanent(lifetime)employmentasacorporateofficerifhewouldrelocate b fromSt.LouistoNashville.ThecourtheldmovingtoNashvilledidnotfurnishconsideration H becauseitwasnottheobjectivesoughtbythecompany,butwasmerelyapreparatoryact . ~ necessarytoaccepttheofferofemployment.Wedonotbelievepermanentemployment  d conditioneduponrelocationisanalogoustothenegotiationandcompletionofacomplexsewer  J constructionprojectlastingnearlyadecade.Thepartiesinthiscaseunderstoodtheextensionof  0 theMillCreekwouldbealengthyprocess.Thedevelopersdemandfortheadvertisementofthe    projectforbidsbySeptember15,1995reflectedhiscontinueddesirefortheconstructionofthe    MillCreeksewerextension.Metroscompliancewiththisdemandreflectedtheirbeliefthata   contractexistedbetweenthepartiesandtheircontinuedcommitmenttotheproject.%T™݌ x  Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    X%  %c݌̌    dXXc  %  XcXd    X%ޠ  ThiscourtaffirmsthetrialcourtsdeterminationJohnsonssubsequentwriting D  demandingbidsbeletbySeptember15,1995,orhewouldwithdrawhisofferof$1,000,000, *z  demonstratedacquiescenceandwaiverofhisrighttoperformancebyAugust15,1995.The ` developersfailuretodesignateanewdeadlineforperformanceconvertedthetimethe F commencementofconstructiontoareasonabletime.Thiscourtfindsconstructioncommenced , withinareasonabletimeafterJohnsonsdemandfortheprojecttobeadvertisedforbids.%ޠ>݌  Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    X%Q  ݀%Q݌  Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd      %B  3.@..AuthorizationofMetroDirectorWilliamstoEnterIntotheMillCreekAgreement%B݌  Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    XE.` hp x (#X(#E%  %>݌̌    dXXc    XcXd     X X&    Johnsonalsoarguesthetrialcourterredinholdinghewascontractuallybounduponthe Z theorythataMetroordinanceprovisionauthorizedtheWaterandSewerDepartmentDirectorto @ enterintotheMillCreekagreement.Thedeveloperclaimstheunderstandingbetweenthe &v parties,assetoutincorrespondence,didnotconformtotherequirementsofMetroCode  \ 15.36.040.Johnsonfurtherarguestheexcessaccessfeesindisputewereunlawful,astheywere B notauthorizedbyanyMetroordinanceorCodeprovision.Insupport,thedeveloperdirectsthe ( courtsattentiontoLebanonv.Baird,756S.W.2d236(Tenn.1988),wheretheSupremeCourt  heldacontractwasvoidandofnoeffectbecausethetermsofthecitycharterprovidedthis  powercouldonlybeexercisedthroughtheenactmentofanordinance.Johnsonsuggeststhe   decisioninLebanonv.Bairdappliestoanyandeverymunicipalactionforwhoseachievement p!  thecharterprovisionrequiresanordinanceproceduretobefollowed.@ cԌ V"! Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    X%  ' Z4%݌̌    dXXc  %  XcXd    %    TheMetropolitanCharterempowerstheMetropolitanGovernmenttoprovideforthe "$r# rates,charges,andassessmentsnecessaryfortheoperationofthewaterandsewersystems.The %X $ trialcourtacknowledgedtheMetropolitanGovernmentmayonlyentercontractsasauthorized %>!% bythecharterandtheMetropolitancode.UnderTitle15,regardingwater,sewerandother &$"& publicservices,MetroCode15.36.040 CapacityChargeincludesseveralimportant ' #' provisions.%݌ (#( Ќ    dXXc  %  XcXd    %  %݌̌    dXXc   X (00V / /""   ,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,  B+4 4` hp x (#X(#BXcXd22  A  .3   4   NotwithstandinganyotherprovisionoftheMetropolitanCodeofLawstothe l*%* Contrary,thereisestablishedacapacitychargeoffivehundreddollarsperunitof R+&+ flowonallnewconnectionswherepublicsewersdonotexist,asoftheeffectivedate 8,', ofthissection(February21,1984).Thechargeshallapply,wheresewersdoexist, -n(- forallunitsofflowinexcessoffourperacrenottoexceedamaximumchargeof  twentyfivethousanddollarsperacre.Thiscapacitychargeshallbedistinguished  fromandcollectedinadditiontotheexistingtapfeerequiredby15.36.020.2U݌ | Ќ  ' X(#44` X(#'   dXXc%  XcXd    ,E.` hp x (#X(#E%  %݌̌    dXXc  ""   ,,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#BXcXd82  B  .3   4   TrunksewerconstructionorexpansionfundingbytheMetropolitanGovernment H shallbeonlyuponthebasisofavailabilityoffunds.Ifdevelopersfundconstruction . ~ orexpansionoftrunksewers,theMetropolitanGovernmentshallcollectthecharges  d createdhereininaccordancewithsubsectionF,below.Nothinginthissubsection  J shallbeconstruedtocreateanyobligationontheMetropolitanGovernmenttofund  0 inwholeorinparttheconstructionorexpansionoftrunksewers.8O݌    Ќ  ,' X(#44` X(#'   dXXc%  XcXd    ,%  %݌̌    dXXc  ""   ,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#BXcXdr2  C  .3   4   Thechargesestablishedhereinshallbeplacedintheextensionandreplacementfund   oftheMetropolitanDepartmentofWaterandSewerageservices.r݌ x  Ќ  ' X(#44` X(#'   dXXc  XcXd     ,  E.` hp x (#X(#E&  3  ***3  zԌ ^  Ќ    dXXc  / /""   ,,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,E.44` hp x (#X(#EXcXd2  F  .3      Allchargesestablishedbytheenactmentofthissectionshallbedueandpayablepriorto D  issuanceofapermitforserviceconnectiontothepublicsewer.Ifadeveloper *z  prepaysanypartorallofthefeecharge,suchpaymentsmaybeindicatedwithfiling ` ofthepropertysubdivisionplatorotherdulyrecordedinstrument.Thiscontribution F maybeintheformofcashpaymentsorequivalentconstructioncost.Intheeventa , developercontributes,inequivalentconstructioncost,anamountgreaterthanthe  chargeestablishedbythissection,suchdevelopersshallbereimbursedforsuch  contributiontothatextentwhenthedepartmentcollectsotherapplicablefeesfrom  propertiesservedbytheproject.Anysuchreimbursementshallbemadeonlyafter t theMetropolitanGovernmenthasbeenreimbursedfortheentiretyofitscosts.The Z DepartmentofWaterandSewerageservicesshallkeeppermanentrecordsforeach @ project,andallcontractualobligationsshallbesworntoandexecutedbythe &v participatingparty.ThedirectoroftheDepartmentofWaterandSewerageservices  \ isauthorizedtoenterintosaidagreementsonbehalfoftheMetropolitanGovernment. B ݌̌  ,* X(#4, X(#*   dXXc  XcXd     ,    Ԍ̌    dXXc    XcXd     X  ThetrialcourtconcludedMetroDirectorWilliamswasauthorizedtoentertheMillCreek  agreementwithJohnsonundersubsectionF: ThedirectoroftheDepartmentofWaterand   SewerageservicesisauthorizedtoenterintosaidagreementsonbehalfoftheMetropolitan p!  Government.SubsectionFalsospecificallycontemplatesthepossibilitythatdevelopersmaybe V"! requiredtoparticipateinthefundingofatrunksewerextensionbeyondthe$500capacity <#" charge: Intheeventadevelopercontributes,inequivalentconstructioncost, anamount "$r# greaterthanthechargeestablishedbythissection ,(emphasisadded)suchdevelopersshallbe %X $ reimbursedforsuchcontributiontothatextentwhenthedepartmentcollectsotherapplicable %>!% feesfrompropertiesservedbytheproject.Anysuchreimbursementshallbemadeonlyafterthe &$"& MetropolitanGovernmenthasbeenreimbursedfortheentiretyofitscosts.Thiscourtrejects ' #' JohnsonscontentionthatsituationssuchastheMillCreekagreement,wheredevelopersmaybe (#( requiredtocontributeexcessaccessfees,areunlawful.Thisarrangementwasspecifically )$) providedforwithinMetroCode15.36.040(F).  Ԍ l*%*      dXXc  X  XcXd'^ R+&+  XcXXXc    & ,       Johnsonalsoclaimstheunderstandingbetweentheparties,assetoutincorrespondence,did  notconformtotherequirementsofMetroCode15.36.040becausetheexcesscapacityfees   weredesignatedasnonrefundable.Thefollowinglanguageinsubsection(F)isimplicated: In | theeventadevelopercontributes,inequivalentconstructioncost,anamountgreaterthanthe b chargeestablishedbythissection,suchdevelopersshallbereimbursedforsuchcontributionto H thatextentwhenthedepartmentcollectsotherapplicablefeesfrompropertiesservedbythe . ~ project.AnysuchreimbursementshallbemadeonlyaftertheMetropolitanGovernmenthas  d beenreimbursedfortheentiretyofitscosts.Thedevelopercorrectlyindicatessubsection(F)  J providesformandatoryreimbursementofexcessaccessfees,butonlyaftertheMetropolitan  0 Governmenthasbeenreimbursedfortheentiretyofitscosts.ThefailureoftheMillCreek    agreementtofollowthisrequirementmayrendertheclauseregardingreimbursementofthe    excessaccessfeesunenforceable.However,thefailuretofollowthisrequirementdoesnot   rendertheentireMillCreekagreementunenforceable.Thiscourtrefusestoultimatelyrule x  regardingtheenforceabilityorseverabilityofthereimbursementclauseasthisissuewasnot ^  consideredattrial.ThiscourtaffirmsthetrialcourtsdeterminationMetroDirectorWilliams D  wasauthorizedtoenterintotheseagreementswithMr.JohnsononbehalfoftheMetropolitan *z  Governmentinspiteoftheclauseregardingthereimbursementofexcessaccessfees.   Ԍ ` ЌXcXXXc  %  XcXXXc    %  ',%d݌̌    XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc      %  4.@..Duress%P݌ ,      XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc    XE.` hp x (#X(#E%   ݀% ݌  Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc     X X& $"  @  Finally,Johnsonobjectstheexcessaccessfeeswereunlawfulastheywerepaidunder  duress.Thedevelopercomplainshewasinapositionthatgavehimnoalternativebuttoagree  tothesechargessincehisrealestatedevelopmentrequiredseweraccess.However,thetrial | courtnotedJohnsonwasnotplacedinthatpositionbytheactionsoftheMetropolitan b Government.Johnsonacquired,byoption,aparceloflandhewishedtodevelopwithoutprior H inquiryregardingthecapacityoravailabilityofseweraccess.Thetrialcourtdeclaredthe . ~ developersduresswasofhisownmaking.ThetrialcourtfoundMetrodidnotimposeany  d duressuponJohnson.@  Ԍ  J Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc         Ԍ  0 Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc       Johnsonremarksapublicofficialsimpositionofsomerequirementuponacitizenis    legallyvoidwhenlawdoesnotauthorizetherequirement.Bradleyv.State,222Tenn.535,438    S.W.2d738(1969).However,asthiscourthaspreviouslystated,theimpositionoftheexcess   accessfeesbyMetroDirectorWilliamswasspecificallyauthorizedbyMetroCode5.36.040. x  ThedeveloperalsodirectsthecourtsattentiontothisCourtsdecisioninReynoldsv. ^  MetropolitanNashvilleDavidsonCounty,1991Tenn.App.LEXIS123.Johnsondeclares D  officialactiondonewithoutauthorityandusinggovernmentalpowertofinanciallybenefita *z  municipalityoritsofficialsbygainingassenttoaprotectivecontractconstitutesduressandthe ` contractisrenderedillegal.However,theReynoldscaseexaminedathreattoproceedwith F pendingcriminalchargesinordertocompeladefendanttosignareleaseofhisrightsundera , personalinjuryclaimafterbeingshotbyanofficer.ThiscourtdoesnotfindJohnsons  allegationsofduressanalogoustothepersonalfearorthreatofimprisonmentconsideredin  Reynolds.  Ԍ  Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc     !  !  hԌ t Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc     "  Furthermore,JohnsonwasfreetorejecttheMillCreekagreementifheobjectedtothe Z excessaccessfees.Thedevelopercouldhaverefusedtoproceedwiththedevelopmentofthis @ parceloflanduntilmoreadvantageousconditionswerepresent.Likewise,Metrowasunderno &v  obligationtoextendtheMillCreektrunksewertoJohnsonsplannedrealestatedevelopment.  \ MetroCode5.36.040(B),specificallyprovides: Nothinginthissubsectionshallbeconstrued B tocreateanyobligationontheMetropolitanGovernmenttofundinwholeorinpartthe ( constructionorexpansionoftrunksewers.Thus,JohnsonfreelychosetoexecutetheMill  Creekagreementbecauseitwasfinanciallyinhisbestinteresttoparticipateintheconstruction  ofthesewerextension.ThiscourtaffirmsthetrialcourtsdeterminationMetrodidnotforce   JohnsontoexecutetheMillCreekagreementunderduress.ThiscourtconcludestheMillCreek p!  agreementisvalidandbinding.Finally,Johnsonalsoclaimsaconstructivetrustshouldbe V"! imposedontheexcessaccessfeessincetheywereobtainedunderduress.Thiscourtfindsthis <#" issueisinapplicableasweaffirmedthetrialcourtsdeterminationMetrodidnotforceMr. "$r# JohnsontoexecutetheMillCreekagreementunderduress."  iԌ %X $ Ќ    XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc    X ,E.` hp x (#X(#E%B  '$"%B݌̌    XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc    %  B.  WhetherthetrialcourtshouldhavedeterminedJohnsonwasliable,intheabsence &$"& ofabindingcontract,underprinciplespromissoryestoppelorimpliedcontract.%݌ ' #' Ќ    XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc    %.  %.݌̌    XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc     ,E.e` hp x (#X(#E%  Alternatively,MetroarguestheyreasonablyrelieduponJohnsonspromisestopayan )$) agreedshareofthecostoftheMillCreeksewerextensionandJohnsonreceivedabenefitfrom l*%* theprojectscompletion.MetroarguesJohnsonisobligatedtokeephisbargainevenifno R+&+  expresscontractexisted.However,theissueofpromissoryestoppelorimpliedcontractismoot, 8,', asthisCourthaspreviouslyaffirmedthetrialcourtsdeterminationabindingcontractobligated  Johnsontocontribute$1,000,000tothecostoftheMillCreeksewerextension.%݌       XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc     XE.` hp x (#eX(#E%  %݌̌    XcXXXc    XcXXXc     X  &    IV.Conclusion  bYԌ b Ќ    XcXXXc    Ӏ'b H   Thiscourtaffirmsthetrialcourtsdeterminationabindingcontractexistedbetween . ~ JohnsonandMetroandthecorrespondingrejectionofrecoveryforMetroundertheoriesof  d promissoryestoppelorimpliedcontract.Johnsonwasobligatedtocontribute$1,000,000toward  J thecostoftheMillCreeksewerextensionunderthetermsoftheMillCreekagreementless  0 creditforhispreviousparticipation.ThetrialcourtcorrectlydismissedJohnsonsclaimsand    enteredjudgmentinfavorofMetrofor$688,942.88.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.    Thecostofthisappealshallbeassessedagainsttheappellant.    h__________________________________ D  % Z -  ASH,S.J.-  %Z *z   hdXXc