WPC? ?%V9;2*wt~+K>z!O1>6Ҥ Mh>uO2Bt$(5 B.]S&s,?BMQ!w?:Db{[pȟɑh ( d׈왤(TGdҢa<%X}Y;sWU$`-rc3'HqK+Ipf$N}A(Ne~xYU6֭^<6 lj L1|"CH -Țr(wdܸ8Mv-p~Dy%H|l۰Ը1-5~?wõك V97?P8X(x<3 ]gf-YW9VԣF1T/*OJrzhbSW,I Ʀsj|#,I6ÿ_mU>4 0 0 0 01 0D 0W 0j 0} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0:& 0Z' 0( 0<( 0 <( 0<) 0D) 0^) 0* 0:+L+ 0,-U>- .  /. 9.  I. S.  c. m.  }. .  . .  . .  . . . D+. A"/@ /o/  Z0 d0@ v0o0 ( 1  51 ?1  Q1 ]1 o1  1 1  1 V1 2 V2 i2 {2 B2 0C2%2UD6$\6 1e9 79 1e9 7X: f: 0x: B-z; B;; 0;#n<UN/> %}>M>(>N>^ > 1u> 722?wd?4h?|? m~?\  `&Times New Roman'  LA satisfied Microsoft Office User0jstevens .   2[+[ 0_level1   , 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level2   X 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level3    8.4` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level4    8.` ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level5    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level6    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level9    8.<` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl1   , 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl2   X 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl3    8.4` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl4    8.` ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl5    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl6    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl9    8.<` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl1   , 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl2   X 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl3    8.4` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl4    8.` ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl5    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl6    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl9    8.<` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  6< /4Heading 1  XXX        6? 24Heading 2  XXX          6& 4Heading 3XXX   <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref< :Footnote Tex<;; :Body Text In  X XXX       X 6// 4Body Text  XXX      0A .Footer  (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number  )9")..      aXaXa  _!  (#X!'  XcX*XcXXXc&$  (# X$  &  ')  *X*Xc*(29"$ _/!..      adXaXdad  \  `&Times New RomanText1a1Text3a2Text4a3Text5a4Text6a5Text7a6Text8a7Text9Text10'dxd;&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK> 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($      _/!..      aXaXa  B.` hp x (#XB#  #  "    1  " _  ݀ThetrialcourtfoundHaroldDelkwasJohnsonsagentforsewerprojectnegotiations.Delkwasprominently  involvedinnegotiationswithMetroonbehalfofMr.JohnsonforboththeWhittemoreandMillCreekAgreements. o JohnsonandDelkcoauthoredmuchoftheprojectcorrespondence,whichwasfrequentlypreparedbyDelks .~ secretaryandmailedfromDelksoffice.'\  .`,Times New Romans  _/!..      aXaXa  B.` hp x (#XB#  #  "    2  " _  ݀Ordinancenumber0951488authorizingtheacceptanceofanamountnottoexceed$1,000,000fromJohnsonfor  theinstallationoftheMillCreekandHoltCreektrunksewerswasintroducedtotheMetropolitanCouncilonJune o 20,1995andapprovedonAugust3,1995.However,theMetropolitanCouncilordinancedidnotstateallofthe .~ termssetforthintheletterofagreement. 35;AGMSY_1A.1.i.1.a.i.1.a.V i. 35;AGMSY_2A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.X i.Text21(2ح$ _/!..      adXaXdad  cXd  0  )Hairline d  d#|x(r/$..      adXaXdadHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularaX-s 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)gi),-$? U _/!..      aXaXa  _       (8dd8  0p x (#X0WQ  WINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  QHH$AT% + -  NASHVILLE-  W %+Ԉ    H.` hp x (#X(#HJanuary9,2002Session > XcXWWXXc % , %,.% - -  PAULE.JOHNSON-  %-LԀv.% . %.% / -  THEMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENTOF 0 NASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTY,TENNESSEE,ANDLESTERL.  < WILLIAMS,JR.,DIRECTOROFTHEDEPARTMENTOFWATERAND  H SEWERAGESERVICESOFTHEMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENTOF  T NASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTY-  %/.XcXW   `  % 0 %0T% 1 -  Ԁ-  %1rԀAppealfromthe% 2 %2% 3 Chancery%3ԀCourtfor% 4 %4% 5 -  Davidson-  %5,ԀCounty R  No.% 6 %6% 7 991886II%7Ԁ% 8 %8% 9 -  CarolMcCoy-  %9,% : -  Chancellor-  %:8 8  -  XXc <=k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE K K2 -  XcX No.% ? %?% @ -  M200100633COAR3CV-  %@ԀFiledDecember11,2002  -  XXc <Ak[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE[ K K[2 -  XcX  % C   %Ci 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-  %E,;Judgmentofthe% F %F% G -  ChanceryCourt L Affirmed-  %G 2    % H -  Ash-  %H<,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 %Nz% 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.Atthetime,Metrobelievedtheincreasedflowfromproposed    developmentwouldencroachuponthelimitedcapacityoftheWhittemoreBranchnatural    drainagebasin.HaroldDelk,Johnsonsengineerandagentforsewerprojectnegotiations,wrote   toMetroonAugust1,1988,andagreedforthedevelopertopay$1,000perlotinlieuofthe x  present$500perlotaccesscharge,tohelpfinanceanynecessaryenlargementsorextensionsof ^  theWhittemoretrunklineandconstructionofanewMillCreekHoltCreektrunksewer."  S R  1     "_  hXcT,ԀTXcX,TXcXhTXc D  CorrespondencefromMetroDirectorBuddyWilliamstoHaroldDelk,datedMarch17,1989 *z  clarifiedthe$1,000accessfeeproposedbyDelkbydesignating$500asparticipationinthe ` constructionoftheMillCreeksewertrunkand$500asthesewerchargeauthorizedbythe F MetropolitanCouncilthroughtheMetroCharter.Mr.DelksletterinresponsedatedMarch22, , 1989acceptedthetermsoftheWhittemoreAgreement.JohnsondevelopedBradfordHillsand  HoltWoodssubdivisionsasplannedandpaidMetro$394, 500overthesucceedingyears  pursuanttotheWhittemoreAgreement.   t  X  JohnsonoriginallyplannedtoengageacontractortocompletetheMillCreeksewer Z extension,andMetrowouldcontributefundsforpartofthecost.Bidswereletfortheproject @ butreturnedexceedingtheauthorizedbudgetof$1.3millionandtheprojectwasnotundertaken &v atthattime.NegotiationscontinuedbetweenMetroandJohnsonandhisagents.OnMarch2,  \ 1994,MetrowroteJohnsonregardinghisparticipationintheMillCreektrunksewer.Metro B acknowledgedtheyhadnoobjectiontocappingJohnsonsparticipationat$1,000,000towardthe ( costoftheproject,lesscreditforthenetamountpreviouslypaidforexcesscapacityfeesunder  theWhittemoreAgreement.Mr.JohnsonwroteMetroonOctober17,1994tomemorializethe  termsoftheMillCreekAgreementinasingledocument.Johnsonmodifiedtheoutlinedformal   agreementandsignedtheletterindicatinghisacceptanceofthetermssetforththerein.Healso p!  statedhewouldneitherbesubjectto,northebeneficiaryof,anysubsequentbasisimpactfeesor V"! participationbyotherusersoftheproposedsewersystem,andallconstructionworkonphase <#" onewouldincludeplansbyAndersonDelkandAssociates,Inc.approvedbytheWater "$r# DepartmentonJune14,1993.Theagreementbythepartieswassubjecttoconstructionofthe %X $  sewerbeginningnotlaterthanJune1,1995.TheMillCreekAgreementwasalsocontingent %>!% uponapprovaloftheMetropolitanCouncil."  U R  2     "#to  MetrorepliedtoJohnsonsofferbyletterdated   December27,1994aswrittenconfirmationofacceptanceofthedeveloperslatest  modifications.However,MetrocautionedJohnsontheprojectinvolvedcomplexpreliminary | reviewofenvironmentalandarcheologicalissues.Consequently,theycouldnotguarantee b constructionoftheprojectwouldbeginbyJune1,1995.OnJune8,1995,aftertheexpirationof H theJune1,1995deadlineforbeginningconstructionexpired,JohnsonvoluntarilywroteMetro . ~ andofferedtoextendthedatetobeginconstructionuntilAugust15,1995.Whenconstruction  d hadnotbegunbyAugust15,1995,JohnsonagainwrotetoMetroonAugust30,1995,stating,  J  iftheMillCreekSewercannotbeadvertisedforbidsbySeptember15,1995,Iwillhaveno  0 choicebuttowithdrawmyofferofonemilliondollarsfortheconstructionofthisproject.    MetroadvertisedtheprojectforbidsonSeptember3,1995.Metrothenconductedaprebid    meetingattendedbyJohnsonsengineer,HaroldDelk.Thepartiesdidnothaveanydirect   contactwitheachotherafterthismeeting. x   X ^  ExcavationworkbeganinAprilof1996.Johnsonobservedtheconstructionofthe D  projectthroughoutuntilitscompletionapproximatelythreeyearslater.Johnsondidnot *z  contributeanythingtothefundingoftheMillCreekextensionpursuanttotheagreementwith ` Metroandreflectedinordinancenumber0951488.Furthermore,thedeveloperdemandeda F refundoftheexcessaccessfeespaidundertheWhittemoreAgreementfourmonthsafterthe , BradfordHillsandHoltWoodssubdivisionswereconnectedtothesewer.Metrocompletedthe  projectshortlythereafterandrequestedJohnsonpaytheoutstandingbalanceundertheMill  CreekAgreement.Thedeveloperclaimedanyobligationhemayhavehadtomakesuch  paymentsterminatedAugust15,1995becauseconstructionwasdelayed.Johnsonfileda t complaintdemandingarefundfortheseweraccessfees.Metrocounterclaimedseeking Z enforcementoftheMillCreekAgreementaseitheraunilateralorbilateralcontractorunder @ unjustenrichmentorpromissoryestoppeltheories.Johnsondeniedtheexistenceofacontractto &v sharethecostofextendingatrunksewerlinkandclaimedtheexcessaccessfeeswerepaid  \ underextortionorduress. B  ( Thetrialcourtmadethefollowingfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw:First,  JohnsonsclaimthathisobligationterminatedonAugust15,1995ignoredtheexistenceofa  contractwithMetroonthatdate.Second,anordinancewaspassed,andJohnsonwasnot   entitledtocancelthecontractbyhissilence.Third,Johnsonmayhavebeeninapositionto p!  cancelthecontracthadheactedaffirmatively.However,Johnsonunilaterallyandvoluntarily V"! demandedbidsbeletbySeptember16,1995,andMetrocompliedwiththisdemand. <#" Consequently,Metrowasinapositiontohaveabindingcontractatthattimedespitethefact "$r# constructionhadnotstarted.Johnsonssilenceandacquiescencewaivedtheprovisionrequiring %X $ constructiontobeginbyAugust15,1995.Fourth,JohnsoncontinuedtoparticipateintheMill %>!% CreekBranchextensioninaccordancewiththetermsoftheagreementwithMetroexceptforthe &$"& paymentoftheadditionalmonieshehadpromised.Fifth,itwasevidentfromproofthatJohnson ' #' greatlydesiredtheMillCreekBranchextension.Withouthispromiseof$1,000,000,the (#( extensionwouldnothavegoneforwardonatimelybasis,benefitingJohnson.Sixth,Metrodid )$) notcoerceJohnsontoentertheagreement,norwastheagreementvoidforduress.Anyduress  feltbyJohnsonwastheresultofhisacquisitionofaparceloflandfordevelopmentwithoutprior  inquiryregardingsewercapacityoravailability.Seventh,Johnsonsproposedpaymenttoward | thedevelopmentoftheMillCreekBranchwasproperlymadeandacceptedinaccordancewith b Metrocode15.36.040regardingdeveloperswhowishtofundconstructionorexpansionof H trunksewers.Theparticipationinthedevelopmentcametofruitionoveraperiodofyears, . ~ beginningwitha$500perunitpaymentthatwaslatersupplementedbytheofferof$1,000,000  d cappingJohnsonscontribution.  J   0 ThetrialcourtfoundtherewasacontractobligatingJohnsontopay$1,000,000.This    agreementwasappropriatelyauthorizedbyWilliamsonbehalfoftheMetropolitanGovernment    andthecontractwasproperlyratifiedbytheMetropolitanCouncilbyitsordinance.The   requirementsthatcontractualobligationsbesworntoandexecutedbytheparticipatingparties x  wereformalitieswaivedbybothparties.Johnsonsactionsratifiedtheagreement,wherehe ^  requestedthefundspreviouslypaidtoMetroinexcessof$300,000beappliedtowardshis D  $1,000,000obligation.Johnsonwasgivencreditaccordingly.Thetrialcourtemphasizedthese *z  partiesenteredintoacontractualagreementandconcludedMetrowasnotentitledtoequitable ` relieforrecoveryunderatheoryofpromissoryestoppelorimpliedcontract.Thetrialcourt F ultimatelydismissedJohnsonsclaimsandenteredjudgmentinfavorofMetrofor$688,942.88. , Johnsonappealed.   X  XcXXXc      &  =  II.StatementofIssues=s= 19O=Ԍ t Ќ    XcXXXc    'tg=%  XcXXXc    %O>    Thefollowingissuesarebeforethecourt:(A)Whetherthetrialcourtproperly @ determinedJohnsonbreachedavalidandbindingcontractrequiringhimtopayanagreed &v amounttoMetrotowardthecostofextendingtheMillCreektrunksewer;and(B)Whetherthe  \ trialcourtshouldhavedeterminedJohnsonwasliable,intheabsenceofabindingcontract, B underprinciplespromissoryestoppelorimpliedcontract.%O>>݌ ( Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc      &  )A  III.Analysis)AA 19sAԌ   Ќ    XcXXXc    ' A V (03g""   ,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#B B2  A  .3   4   WhetherthetrialcourtproperlydeterminedJohnsonbreachedavalidand V"! bindingcontractrequiringthedevelopertopayanagreedamounttowardthe <#" costofextendingtheMillCreektrunksewer.BC݌ "$r# Ќ  ' X(#44` X(#'   XXc %  XcX    ,E.` hp x (#X(#E%E  %ExF݌̌    XXc    XcX     X ,& # F  Johnsonassertsthetrialcourterredindetermininghebreachedavalidandbinding %>!% contractobligatinghimtopaythebalanceowingunderanoffertocontribute$1,000,000tothe &$"& extensionoftheMillCreektrunksewer.Instead,thedeveloperargueshisunilateralofferto ' #' participateinthesewerextensionprojectexpiredwhenconstructiondidnotbeginonAugust15, (#( 1995andheisentitledtoarefundof$395,000previouslypaidtoMetro.Johnsonspecifically )$) challengestheenforceabilityoftheagreementunderfourtheories:  FzG am:GԌ l*%*      XXc    X  '#%nG R+&+ ""   XE.` hp x (#X(#E   X  ?( hp x (#X(#?& =  XcXJ2  1  .3     WhetherthetrialcourterredbyholdingJohnsonbecamecontractually  boundaftertheMetropolitanCouncilpassedordinancenumber092384  approvingthedevelopersunilateralofferonAugust3,1995,eventhough | MetrodidnotcommenceconstructionbyAugust15,1995,orbyanyother b datedictatedbythetimepressuresofthedevelopersbusiness.J3L݌ H Ќ  ' X(#  X(#'   XXc  '=K""   XE.` hp x (#X(#E   X  ?( hp x (#X(#?&  XcXO2  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.O4P݌  Ќ  ' X(#  X(#'   XXc  '  P""   XE.` hp x (#X(#E   X  ?( hp x (#X(#?& = XcXU2  3  .3     WhetherthetrialcourterredinholdingJohnsonwascontractuallybound t uponthetheorythatametroordinanceprovisionauthorizedtheWaterand Z SewerDepartmentDirectortoenterintothecontractualarrangementwith @ thedeveloper,wheretheunderstanding,assetoutincorrespondence,did &v notconformtotherequirementsofthecitedMetroprovision.UV݌  \ Ќ  ' X(#  X(#'   XXc  '=tV""   XE.` hp x (#X(#E   X  ?( hp x (#X(#?&  XcXY2  4  .3     WhetherthetrialcourterredinrejectingJohnsonsclaimofarighttoa  refundoftheunauthorizedsewerconnectionchargesof$500perlot,plus  interest,imposeduponhiminadditiontothe$500capacityfeeauthorized } bytheMetroCode,whereJohnsonpaidsuchamountstotaling$395,000as c theonlywayhecouldgetsewerservice,butinsistedtheamountswere I paidunderduress.YZ݌ / Ќ  ' X(#  X(#'   XXc  XcX     X]  ]^ am]Ԍ  e Ќ    XXc    XcX     ^  Incontrast,Metroarguesthisdisputeisasimplebreachofcontractcase.Metrosuggests  K  theMillCreekagreementcanbeconstruedaseitherabilateralcontractbasedontheparties !1! exchangeofpromises,oraunilateralcontractarisingfromJohnsonsofferandMetros "" acceptancebyperformance.^_ am^Ԍ ## Ќ    XXc  %  XcX    X ,E.` hp x (#X(#E%0a  ' Z%0aa݌̌    XXc  %  XcX    ,%qb  Thecourtwilladdresseachofthesequestionsinturn.%qbb݌ y% % Ќ    XXc  %  XcX    , ,%c  %cd݌̌    XXc  %  XcX      %d  1.@..TheMetropolitanCouncilsAuthorizingOrdinanc e%dd݌ E'"'      XXc  %  XcX    XE.` hp x (#X(#E%e  %ejf݌ +({#( Ќ    XXc    XcX     X X&   f  Johnsonfirstchallengesthetrialcourtsdeterminationhebecamecontractuallybound  aftertheMetropolitanCouncilpassedordinancenumber092384approvingthedevelopers  unilateraloffer,eventhoughMetrodidnotcommenceconstructionbyAugust15,1995,orby | anyotherdatedictatedbythetimepressuresofthedevelopersbusiness.Aunilateralcontract b arisesfromanoffercallingforacceptancebyperformanceofsomeactratherthanbyareturn H promise.Hutchinsonv.DobsonBainbridgeRealtyCo.,217S.W.2d6(Tenn.Ct.App.1946).It . ~ istheperformanceofallrequiredactsthatconvertsanofferintoaunilateralcontract. Allenv.  d ElliottReynoldsMotorCo.,230S.W.2d418(Tenn.Ct.App.1950).Johnsonmaintainshisoffer  J toparticipateintheMillCreekextensionwasaunilateralcontractrequiringacceptancethrough  0 Metrosconstructionoftheproject.ThedeveloperarguesMetrowasundernoobligationto    acceptabidorproceedwithconstruction.JohnsonclaimsMetromusthavecommenced    constructionbyastateddate,originallyJune1,1995,inordertobindhimundertheoffer.   Whenconstructiondidnotbeginonthatdate,Mr.JohnsonwroteMetroproposinganextension x  forthecommencementofconstructionuntilAugust15,1995.Johnsonacknowledgesthe ^  voluntaryextensionofanewdeadlineconstitutesanewofferwheretheoffereefailstomeetthe D  stateddeadline.Robinsonv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,857S.W.2d559(Tenn.Ct.App. *z  1993).However,thedeveloperdisputesthetrialcourtsfindingtheMetropolitanCouncils ` adoptionoftheauthorizingordinanceonAugust3,1995createdacontractbecausehesuggests F acceptanceoftheunilateralofferrequiredthebeginningofconstructionwithinthestated , deadline.Johnsonmaintainsthereisnocontractifthenewdeadlinewasnotmet.Id.Thus,he  allegestheofferexpiredwhenMetrofailedtobeginconstructionbyAugust15,1995.fg  @gԌ  Ќ    XXc    XcX     q  qq  qԌ  Ќ    XXc  X  XcX  MetrodirectsthecourtsattentiontotheRestatement(Second)ofContracts45(2),and t suggeststhedoctrineofpartialperformancewouldprecludeMr.Johnsonfromrevokinghis Z offer.Thedoctrineofpartialperformanceprovidestheofferormaynotrevokeanoffercalling @ foracceptanceviaperformanceofsomeactoncetheoffereebeginsperformance.Thedoctrine &v ofpartialperformancewouldappeartobeapplicabletotheMillCreekagreement.The  \ negotiationandconstructionofthiscomplexsewerextensionprojectinvolvedtheperformance B ofmanystepstowardtheprojectsultimatecompletionoveraperiodofnearlyadecaderather ( thantheperformanceofasingleact.'tg    XcXXXc     X& S \v  \vv  vԌ  Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc     ww  Johnsonsargumentfailstoconsidertheexistenceofabilateralcontractformedthrough   thepartiesexchangeofpromisesandcorrespondence.Abilateralcontractisbasedupona p!  conventionalexchangeofpromises.Inabilateralcontract,thepromiseonsideisviewedas V"! considerationforthereturnpromise,andbothpartiesareboundfromthemomenttheyexchange <#" promises.Hutchinsonat9.Notably,iftheofferdoesnotspecifyhowitistobeaccepted,either "$r# areturnpromiseorperformanceiseffective.MetrodirectsthecourtsattentiontoRestatement %X $ (Second)ofContracts32,whichprovides, Incaseofdoubt,anofferisinterpretedasinviting %>!% theoffereetoaccepteitherbypromisingtoperformwhattheofferrequestsorbyrendering &$"& performance,astheoffereechooses.Thus,theMillCreekagreementmaybeviewedasa ' #' bilateralagreement,whereMetrosDecember27,1994letteracceptingtheofferposedin (#( JohnsonsOctober17,1994lettercreatedacontractthatboundbothpartiesatthattime.These )$) itemsofcorrespondencereflecttheassentofbothpartiestotheessentialtermsoftheagreement. l*%* www  wԌ     XcXXXc  XXXc'S v 8,',   XcX     X& q  J~  ThiscourtaffirmsthetrialcourtsholdingJohnsonbecamecontractuallyboundafterthe  MetropolitanCouncilpassedordinancenumber092384approvingthedevelopersofferto  participateintheMillCreeksewerextension.J~~  ~Ԍ | Ќ    XXc  X'q~%  XcX      %  2.@..Mr.JohnsonsAugust30,1995WritingThreateningtoTerminateParticipation%݌ 0 Ќ    XXc  %  XcX    XE.` hp x (#X(#E%  %݌̌    XXc  %  XcX    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).TheMillCreek  trunkseweratissuewascompletedin1998.BradfordHillsandHoltWoodssubdivisionsare t connectedtoMillCreekaswellastheAutumnOakspropertyownedbyMr.Johnson.Johnson Z arguesthesefactsleadtotheconclusionthatMetrodidnothingatalltoindicateacontractwas @ formed.%݌ &v      XXc  %  XcX    %  %:݌  \ Ќ    XXc    XcX     & \  ɋ  Johnsonarguestheadvertisementwasnotproventohavebeenpublishedinresponseto  hisAugust30,1995demand,Metrodidnotinformhimthatithadadvertisedtheprojectfor  bids,norseekanyextensionofthedaterequiredforthecommencementofconstruction.His | demandforadvertisementoftheprojectforbidsdidnotincludenotificationofcompliance. b Furthermore,thedevelopersargumentalsooverlooksthetrialcourtsconclusionhiswriting H constitutedacquiescenceandwaiveroftheprovisionrequiringconstructionbeginbyAugust15, . ~ 1995.Vestedbilateralcontractrightsmaybewaived,suchaswhereasellerhasadutytoship  d byastateddateandthebuyerhasarighttohavethegoodsshippedbythatdate.Thebuyermay  J waivehisvestedrightbycontinuingtodemandshipmentafterthebreachoccurred.Petwayv.  0 LoewsNashville&KnoxvilleCorp.,117S.W.2d975(Tenn.Ct.App.1938).Metrohadaduty    tobeginconstructionoftheMillCreeksewerextensionbyAugust15,1995.Johnsonhada    vestedrighttoperformanceonthisdate.MetrobreachedthetermsoftheMillCreekagreement   whenconstructiondidnotcommencebythestateddateforperformance.However,Johnson x  waivedhisrighttoperformancebyAugust15,1995whenhewroteMetroanddemandedthe ^  projectbeadvertisedforbidsbySeptember15,1995 orhewouldwithdrawhisofferof D  $1,000,000.Thetimeforperformanceisconvertedtoareasonabletimewhenwaiverofthe *z  timeforperformancepursuanttoabilateralcontractoccurs.Thepartyentitledtoperformance ` mayestablishanewperformancedeadlinebygivingreasonablenoticeofthisrequirement. F Thompsonv.Menefee,6Tenn.App.118(Tenn.Ct.App.1927).Consequently,Metrowas , obligatedtocommenceconstructionoftheMillCreeksewerextensionwithinareasonabletime  ratherthansomeunspecifieddatedictatedbythetimepressuresofthedevelopersbusiness.  TheprojectwasadvertisedforbidsonSeptember3,1995.Thebidswereevaluated,acontractor  wasselectedandexcavationworkfortheMillCreeksewerextensionbeganinAprilof1996. t ThiscourtfindsconstructioncommencedwithinareasonabletimeafterJohnsonsdemandfor Z theprojecttobeadvertisedforbids.ɋ> Ԍ @ Ќ    XXc  %  XcX    X XE.` hp x (#X(#E%  '\(%s݌̌    XXc  %  XcX    X X%  NoristhecourtpersuadedbyJohnsonsargumentthatadvertisementforbidswasmerely  \ apreparatoryactconferringnobenefitonthedeveloper.JohnsoncomparesthiscasetoSavage B v.SpurDistributingCo.,228S.W.2d122(Tenn.Ct.App.1949),acaseconsideringan ( individualpromisedpermanent(lifetime)employmentasacorporateofficerifhewouldrelocate  fromSt.LouistoNashville.ThecourtheldmovingtoNashvilledidnotfurnishconsideration  becauseitwasnottheobjectivesoughtbythecompany,butwasmerelyapreparatoryact   necessarytoaccepttheofferofemployment.Wedonotbelievepermanentemployment p!  conditioneduponrelocationisanalogoustothenegotiationandcompletionofacomplexsewer V"! constructionprojectlastingnearlyadecade.Thepartiesinthiscaseunderstoodtheextensionof <#" theMillCreekwouldbealengthyprocess.Thedevelopersdemandfortheadvertisementofthe "$r# projectforbidsbySeptember15,1995reflectedhiscontinueddesirefortheconstructionofthe %X $ MillCreeksewerextension.Metroscompliancewiththisdemandreflectedtheirbeliefthata %>!% contractexistedbetweenthepartiesandtheircontinuedcommitmenttotheproject.%o݌ &$"& Ќ    XXc  %  XcX    X%  %݌̌    XXc  %  XcX    X%  ThiscourtaffirmsthetrialcourtsdeterminationJohnsonssubsequentwriting (#( demandingbidsbeletbySeptember15,1995,orhewouldwithdrawhisofferof$1,000,000, )$) demonstratedacquiescenceandwaiverofhisrighttoperformancebyAugust15,1995.The l*%* developersfailuretodesignateanewdeadlineforperformanceconvertedthetimethe R+&+ commencementofconstructiontoareasonabletime.Thiscourtfindsconstructioncommenced 8,', withinareasonabletimeafterJohnsonsdemandfortheprojecttobeadvertisedforbids.%݌ -n(- Ќ    XXc  %  XcX    X%  ݀%^݌  Ќ    XXc  %  XcX      %  3.@..AuthorizationofMetroDirectorWilliamstoEnterIntotheMillCreekAgreement%M݌  Ќ    XXc  %  XcX    XE.` hp x (#X(#E%F  %F݌̌    XXc    XcX     X X&  f  Johnsonalsoarguesthetrialcourterredinholdinghewascontractuallybounduponthe b theorythataMetroordinanceprovisionauthorizedtheWaterandSewerDepartmentDirectorto H enterintotheMillCreekagreement.Thedeveloperclaimstheunderstandingbetweenthe . ~ parties,assetoutincorrespondence,didnotconformtotherequirementsofMetroCode  d 15.36.040.Johnsonfurtherarguestheexcessaccessfeesindisputewereunlawful,astheywere  J notauthorizedbyanyMetroordinanceorCodeprovision.Insupport,thedeveloperdirectsthe  0 courtsattentiontoLebanonv.Baird,756S.W.2d236(Tenn.1988),wheretheSupremeCourt    heldacontractwasvoidandofnoeffectbecausethetermsofthecitycharterprovidedthis    powercouldonlybeexercisedthroughtheenactmentofanordinance.Johnsonsuggeststhe   decisioninLebanonv.Bairdappliestoanyandeverymunicipalactionforwhoseachievement x  thecharterprovisionrequiresanordinanceproceduretobefollowed.f Ԍ ^  Ќ    XXc  %  XcX    X%N  ' b%N݌̌    XXc  %  XcX    %<    TheMetropolitanCharterempowerstheMetropolitanGovernmenttoprovideforthe *z  rates,charges,andassessmentsnecessaryfortheoperationofthewaterandsewersystems.The ` trialcourtacknowledgedtheMetropolitanGovernmentmayonlyentercontractsasauthorized F bythecharterandtheMetropolitancode.UnderTitle15,regardingwater,sewerandother , publicservices,MetroCode15.36.040 CapacityChargeincludesseveralimportant  provisions.%<݌  Ќ    XXc  %  XcX    %b  %b݌̌    XXc   X (00V / /""   ,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,  B+4 4` hp x (#X(#BXcX߲2  A  .3   4   NotwithstandinganyotherprovisionoftheMetropolitanCodeofLawstothe t Contrary,thereisestablishedacapacitychargeoffivehundreddollarsperunitof Z flowonallnewconnectionswherepublicsewersdonotexist,asoftheeffectivedate @ ofthissection(February21,1984).Thechargeshallapply,wheresewersdoexist, &v forallunitsofflowinexcessoffourperacrenottoexceedamaximumchargeof  \ twentyfivethousanddollarsperacre.Thiscapacitychargeshallbedistinguished B fromandcollectedinadditiontotheexistingtapfeerequiredby15.36.020.߲݌ ( Ќ  ' X(#44` X(#'   XXc%  XcX    ,E.` hp x (#X(#E%ŷ  %ŷj݌̌    XXc  ""   ,,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#BXcX2  B  .3   4   TrunksewerconstructionorexpansionfundingbytheMetropolitanGovernment  shallbeonlyuponthebasisofavailabilityoffunds.Ifdevelopersfundconstruction   orexpansionoftrunksewers,theMetropolitanGovernmentshallcollectthecharges p!  createdhereininaccordancewithsubsectionF,below.Nothinginthissubsection V"! shallbeconstruedtocreateanyobligationontheMetropolitanGovernmenttofund <#" inwholeorinparttheconstructionorexpansionoftrunksewers.݌ "$r# Ќ  ,' X(#44` X(#'   XXc%  XcX    ,%D  %D݌̌    XXc  ""   ,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#BXcX2  C  .3   4   Thechargesestablishedhereinshallbeplacedintheextensionandreplacementfund %>!%  oftheMetropolitanDepartmentofWaterandSewerageservices.6݌ &$"& Ќ  ' X(#44` X(#'   XXc  XcX     ,  E.` hp x (#X(#E&     *** 1Ԍ  Ќ    XXc  / /""   ,,E.` hp x (#X(#E   ,E.44` hp x (#X(#EXcX2  F  .3      Allchargesestablishedbytheenactmentofthissectionshallbedueandpayablepriorto  issuanceofapermitforserviceconnectiontothepublicsewer.Ifadeveloper | prepaysanypartorallofthefeecharge,suchpaymentsmaybeindicatedwithfiling b ofthepropertysubdivisionplatorotherdulyrecordedinstrument.Thiscontribution H maybeintheformofcashpaymentsorequivalentconstructioncost.Intheeventa . ~ developercontributes,inequivalentconstructioncost,anamountgreaterthanthe  d chargeestablishedbythissection,suchdevelopersshallbereimbursedforsuch  J contributiontothatextentwhenthedepartmentcollectsotherapplicablefeesfrom  0 propertiesservedbytheproject.Anysuchreimbursementshallbemadeonlyafter    theMetropolitanGovernmenthasbeenreimbursedfortheentiretyofitscosts.The    DepartmentofWaterandSewerageservicesshallkeeppermanentrecordsforeach   project,andallcontractualobligationsshallbesworntoandexecutedbythe x  participatingparty.ThedirectoroftheDepartmentofWaterandSewerageservices ^  isauthorizedtoenterintosaidagreementsonbehalfoftheMetropolitanGovernment. D  ݌̌  ,* X(#4, X(#*   XXc  XcX     ,K  K Ԍ̌    XXc    XcX     XF  ThetrialcourtconcludedMetroDirectorWilliamswasauthorizedtoentertheMillCreek F agreementwithJohnsonundersubsectionF: ThedirectoroftheDepartmentofWaterand , SewerageservicesisauthorizedtoenterintosaidagreementsonbehalfoftheMetropolitan  Government.SubsectionFalsospecificallycontemplatesthepossibilitythatdevelopersmaybe  requiredtoparticipateinthefundingofatrunksewerextensionbeyondthe$500capacity  charge: Intheeventadevelopercontributes,inequivalentconstructioncost, anamount t greaterthanthechargeestablishedbythissection ,(emphasisadded)suchdevelopersshallbe Z reimbursedforsuchcontributiontothatextentwhenthedepartmentcollectsotherapplicable @ feesfrompropertiesservedbytheproject.Anysuchreimbursementshallbemadeonlyafterthe &v MetropolitanGovernmenthasbeenreimbursedfortheentiretyofitscosts.Thiscourtrejects  \ JohnsonscontentionthatsituationssuchastheMillCreekagreement,wheredevelopersmaybe B requiredtocontributeexcessaccessfees,areunlawful.Thisarrangementwasspecifically ( providedforwithinMetroCode15.36.040(F).F Ԍ       XXc  X  XcX'   XcXXXc    & ,   O    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. O ~Ԍ ` ЌXcXXXc  %  XcXXXc    %  ',%݌̌    XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc      %  4.@..Duress%݌ ,      XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc    XE.` hp x (#X(#E%  ݀%f݌  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     P  P Ԍ  0 Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc     Q  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.Q Ԍ  Ќ    XcXXXc    XcXXXc       7 Ԍ 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.8  Ԍ %X $ Ќ    XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc    X ,E.` hp x (#X(#E%  '$"r%݌̌    XcXXXc  %  XcXXXc    %0  B.  WhetherthetrialcourtshouldhavedeterminedJohnsonwasliable,intheabsence &$"& ofabindingcontract,underprinciplespromissoryestoppelorimpliedcontract.%0݌ ' #' 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%  %D݌̌    XcXXXc    XcXXXc     X  &    IV.Conclusion D seԌ b Ќ    XcXXXc    Ӏ'b8 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   hXXc