ÿWPC¹ IK7‰pp‚&’'ƒ¶dfàŒ]å_BWÐ&wêªÝ‰>¢Óá_@éÞŸZˆh«õD])®¢-+{cª‘~Çs´ïŒQúŒ(±ŸÐ› ~±u¼:Ø”þ‹ÈD!4hg€]ègu?i.Š}{t}º ÷X›4pÂ~ "ÍþZÜùÏÞÓåib¥˜nÙ¾œQâ2e&¶¶vû:°æ@è³D¼è6j™ H8k«¹²÷,¶ë Qà[AÍÃGÊU *ÓÛ¼ l‚À¥É˜>HUèAÅÓ~_ü«”ØB#=8s^µ’·©&ÄðX# dI|XÍÊí: ¼uhìÚ*9ûÎÂ¥ ê ãzu2ÞÚ¹þ޵Ølojªï­†ùëÔªÎ×cî¡ísV_ãácä—&û…´>ußB—~ãNGÕAñ;ä|©µÄ8Û™*íì$/¼Tõ(⋦YÏiØá7Kr¤^ÀÂRºŽÍ¾ù‰ðê7fÍö±ÍÍÝšã ̗ȳ6Ä>ŠhRRŸÞ+6á"º»e9­Jd诀Ùr%Ad† ½VÈqˆül܆ ÿÝ,§5¤ÛâœÔcÔ¯€`t.b)úžhºCº`Ø’ÛnÚªàÒÏ¿’Fb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ P‘ Æá Ƨ ÆmÆ3\ùNU 0DW›E¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬b®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® 0ë¶¶¶¶ B¡¡ 0¤¾ D3b D-• 0K AS Æ` 0¤& 0DÊ A«»wn-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬|&- As¨T¥3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0  COA P.J.Copas DBANewcombLoudon SavAssnSoskinVillines GrocKordickBeradiRicker DannParhamBrandel T]heKelsoDealyLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 RÝ ƒRBˆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€parties€stipulated€at€trial€that€the€maximum€interest€rate€Kelso€would€have€been€able€to€charge€was€10%Ð ° Ðin€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„14„103(2),€assuming€this€statute€applies.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRBˆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€In€order€to€correct€a€clerical€error,€the€judgment€against€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€was€entered€this€secondÐ ° Ðtime.- ù-(|G2Bˆ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµÕò»»Ô d(|3?x$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?x$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼í»»»ÔÑ8€I‘XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î¼î»¼íÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼í»îî¼ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€27,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XI‘X»¼íÔÌÌò òÔ#†¼í»XXI‘÷#ÔKELSO€OIL€COMPANY,€INC.€v.€Ð æ 6 ÐEAST€WEST€TRUCK€STOP,€INC.,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XI‘X»¼íÔó óÐ ú J ÐÌÔ#†¼í»XXI‘–#ÔÔ€XI‘X»¼íÔà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€143908„3€€€€€€Sharon€Bell,€ChancellorÐ æ 6  ÐFILED€NOVEMBER€14,€2002Ð Ò"  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02090„COA„R3„CVÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÌThis€main€issue€in€this€appeal€involves€an€Unconditional€Guaranty€signed€by€Frank€Webb€(ð ðWebbðð),Ð xÈ Ðthe€president€and€owner€of€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.€€In€this€document,€Webb€guaranteed€the€debtÐ d´ Ðof€the€ð ðbuyerðð,€which€was€identified€as€ð ðFrank€Webb€d/b/a€East€West€Truck€Stop.ðð€€The€ð ðbuyerðð,Ð P  Ðhowever,€was€the€corporate€entity,€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.€€The€Trial€Court€concluded€the€partiesÐ <Œ Ðintended€for€the€document€to€state€the€ð ðbuyerðð€was€the€corporate€entity€and€entered€judgment€againstÐ (x ÐWebb€personally.€€Webb€appeals,€claiming€the€Trial€Court€improperly€used€parol€evidence€to€supplyÐ d Ðan€essential€term€of€the€Unconditional€Guaranty€(i.e.€the€identity€of€the€ð ðbuyerðð)€in€violation€of€theÐ P ÐStatute€of€Frauds.€€We€affirm.Ð ì< ÐÌò òà@µ µ ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theˆÐ Ä Ðà@¥ ¥ ìàChancery€Court€Affirmed;€Case€RemandedˆÐ ° Ðó óòòÌD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€P.J.,Ð ˆØ Ðóóand€òòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.,€óójoined.Ð t Ä ÐÌGary€D.€Copas,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€and€FrankÐ L"œ! ÐWebb.Ð 8#ˆ" ÐÌRobert€S.€Stone€and€Katherine€M.€Hamilton,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Kelso€OilÐ %` $ ÐCompany,€Inc.Ð ü%L!% ÐÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ À($( ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˜*è%* ÐÌà  àà ` àKelso€Oil€Company,€Inc.,€(ð ðKelsoðð)€filed€a€complaint€alleging€it€supplied€fuel€fromÐ p,À', ÐAugust€1997€through€July€1998,€to€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€pursuant€to€an€open€account€whichÐ \-¬(-ý ÐÔ_Ôrequired€payment€within€ten€days€from€the€date€of€the€invoice.€€After€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€fellÐ ° Ðbehind€in€its€payments,€Webb€signed€an€ð ðUnconditional€Guarantyðð€on€March€4,€1998,€whichÐ œì Ðprovides,€in€relevant€part,€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIN€CONSIDERATION€OF€THE€SALE€OF€GOODS€BY€KELSO€OILÐ `° ÐCOMPANY€(ð ðKELSOðð)€TO€FRANK€WEBB,€DBA€EAST€WESTÐ L œ ÐTRUCK€STOP€(ð ðBUYERðð)€AND€OTHER€GOOD€ANDÐ 8 ˆ ÐVALUABLE€CONSIDERATION,€THE€RECEIPT€ANDÐ $ t ÐSUFFICIENCY€OF€WHICH€ARE€HEREBY€ACKNOWLEDGED,Ð  ` ÐTHE€UNDERSIGNED,€AS€A€DIRECT€AND€PRIMARYÐ ü L  ÐOBLIGATION,€GUARANTEES€TO€KELSO€AND€ANYÐ è 8  ÐASSIGNEE€OF€KELSO€THE€PROMPT€PAYMENT€OF€ALL€SUMSÐ Ô$  ÐOWED€BY€BUYER€TO€KELSO,€FOR€WHATEVER€REASON€ORÐ À  ÐFROM€WHATEVER€SOURCE.€€THE€UNDERSIGNED€PROMISESÐ ¬ü  ÐTO€PAY€ALL€OF€.€.€.€[KELSOððS€EXPENSES],€INCLUDINGÐ ˜è  ÐATTORNEYððS€FEES,€INCURRED€BY€KELSO€IN€ENFORCINGÐ „Ô  ÐTHIS€GUARANTY.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌThe€Unconditional€Guaranty€was€signed€by€Frank€Webb€d/b/a€East€West€Truck€Stop.€€Plaintiff€suedÐ H˜ ÐEast€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€on€the€open€account€and€also€sued€Webb€personally€on€theÐ 4„ ÐUnconditional€Guaranty.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àDefendants€filed€an€answer€to€the€Complaint,€essentially€denying€any€liability€on€theirÐ øH Ðpart.€€Defendants€asserted€several€defenses,€including€a€defense€that€enforcement€of€theÐ ä4 ÐUnconditional€Guaranty€was€prohibited€by€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€Defendants€also€filed€aÐ Ð  Ðcounterclaim€asserting€the€interest€rate€charged€by€Plaintiff€was€usurious.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€its€claims€against€both€Defendants.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€Trial€Court€granted€the€motion€with€respect€to€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€and€entered€judgmentÐ €Ð Ðfor€Plaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$119,241.19,€exclusive€of€late€charges€and/or€attorneyððs€fees.€€NoÐ l¼ Ðappeal€has€been€taken€from€this€portion€of€the€judgment€entered€against€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.€Ð X ¨ ÐAfter€this€partial€summary€judgment€was€granted,€the€only€issues€remaining€for€trial€were€whetherÐ D!” ÐWebb€was€personally€liable€for€the€outstanding€balance€and€for€attorneyððs€fees€pursuant€to€theÐ 0"€  ÐUnconditional€Guaranty,€whether€both€Defendants€were€liable€for€ð ðlate€charges,ðð€and€DefendantsððÐ #l! Ðcounterclaim€asserting€the€interest€rate€was€usurious.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àWebb€testified€via€deposition.€€Webb€is€the€President€and€owner€of€East€West€TruckÐ à%0!$ ÐStop,€Inc.€€Webb€worked€at€different€jobs€over€the€course€of€the€years,€some€of€which€involved€banksÐ Ì&"% Ðand€other€lending€institutions.€€Webb€admitted€that€while€operating€businesses€prior€to€owning€EastÐ ¸'#& ÐWest€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€he€ð ðat€some€time€or€anotherðð€had€to€sign€a€personal€guarantee€in€order€for€hisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbusiness€to€receive€a€loan.€€He€is€aware€of€the€meaning€of€ð ðpersonal€guaranty.ðð€€According€to€Webb,Ð )à$( ÐEast€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€conducted€business€as€East€West€Truck€Stop.€€When€asked€in€whatÐ |*Ì%) Ðcapacity€he€signed€the€Unconditional€Guaranty,€Webb€stated:Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àProbably€the€way€it€looks€as€Frank€Webb€doing€business€as€East€WestÐ ° ÐTruck€Stop€that€Frank€Webb€is€the€main€entity.€€But€East€West€TruckÐ œì ÐStop€is€a€corporation,€and€Iððm€signing€this€as€the€president€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðcorporation.€€That€was€my€understanding.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌWebb€went€on€to€add€he€did€not€sign€the€Unconditional€Guarantee€in€a€personal€capacity€and€did€notÐ L œ Ðintend€to€guarantee€personally€the€corporate€debt€to€Plaintiff.€€When€asked€why€he€signed€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐUnconditional€Guarantee€and€other€documents,€Webb€stated€he€did€not€want€Kelso€to€put€anyÐ $ t Ðð ðpressureðð€on€him.€€Kelso€indicated€if€he€would€sign€the€documents,€ð ðthat€would€kind€of€take€theÐ  ` Ðpressure€off.ðð€€After€he€signed€the€documents,€Webb€admitted€this€took€the€pressure€off€as€he€hadÐ ü L  Ðhoped.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àJames€Newcomb€(ð ðNewcombðð)€testified.€€Newcomb€is€a€salesperson€for€Kelso€andÐ À  Ðhas€worked€for€that€company€for€twenty„one€years.€€Newcomb€testified€to€problems€KelsoÐ ¬ü  Ðencountered€when€trying€to€get€paid€for€the€fuel€it€supplied€to€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.€€NewcombÐ ˜è  Ðand€other€Kelso€employees€contacted€Webb€many€times€and€Webb€kept€promising€to€pay€theÐ „Ô  Ðbalance.€€Newcomb€presented€Webb€with€a€promissory€note€and€the€Unconditional€Guaranty€andÐ pÀ Ðwent€over€the€terms€of€these€documents€with€Webb,€who€agreed€to€sign€them.€€These€documentsÐ \¬ Ðwere€prepared€by€Kelsoððs€general€manager.€€When€Webb€signed€the€documents,€credit€was€no€longerÐ H˜ Ðbeing€extended€to€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.€€Newcomb€testified€he€discussed€these€documents€withÐ 4„ ÐWebb,€and€the€purpose€of€the€Unconditional€Guaranty€was€for€Webb€to€guarantee€the€amount€thatÐ  p Ðwas€owed€to€Kelso.€€Newcomb€acknowledged€both€the€buyer€and€the€guarantor€on€the€UnconditionalÐ  \ ÐGuaranty€are€identified€as€Frank€Webb€d/b/a€East€West€Truck€Stop.€€Newcomb€did€not€prepare€theÐ øH Ðdocuments€and€could€not€explain€why€the€buyer€and€the€guarantor€were€identified€as€the€same.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€concluded€ð ðFrank€Webb,€d/b/a€East€West€Truck€Stopðð€constitutedÐ ¼  Ða€latent€ambiguity€which€allowed€explanation€via€parol€evidence.€€According€to€the€Trial€Court,€theÐ ¨ø Ðparties€meant€the€corporate€defendant€to€be€the€ð ðbuyerðð.€€The€Trial€Court€also€found€there€wasÐ ”ä Ðsufficient€consideration€for€the€Unconditional€Guaranty.€€The€Trial€Court€concluded€Webb€wasÐ €Ð Ðpersonally€liable€pursuant€to€the€Unconditional€Guaranty.€€Judgment€was€entered€against€DefendantsÐ l¼ Ðfor€$119,241.19,€and€for€$69,744.12€in€late€charges.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Plaintiff€also€was€awarded€a€judgment€againstÐ X ¨ ÐWebb€for€attorney€fees.€€The€Trial€Court€dismissed€Defendantsðð€counterclaim.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àWebb€appeals,€claiming€the€Statute€of€Frauds€prohibited€the€Trial€Courtððs€admittingÐ #l! Ðparol€evidence€to€explain€the€terms€of€the€Unconditional€Guaranty.€€Webb€also€claims€the€Trial€CourtÐ $X" Ðerred€in€finding€adequate€consideration€to€support€the€Unconditional€Guaranty.€€Both€DefendantsÐ ô$D # Ðappeal€claiming€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€not€finding€the€late€charges€to€be€interest€and€in€violationÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€usury€laws.€Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& ÐÔ& ˆ Ôâ ââ ââ âà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€Court€are€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€andÐ ˆØ Ðwe€will€not€overturn€those€factual€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóóÐ tÄ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€With€respect€to€legalÐ `° ÐÔ'ˆ°*Ôissues,€our€review€is€conducted€ð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€according€no€deferenceÐ L œ Ðto€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€courts.ðð€€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€CountyÐ 8 ˆ ÐBd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€is€undisputed€that€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€is€a€corporation.€€It€also€is€undisputedÐ ü L  Ðthat€Frank€Webb€does€not€do€business€as€East€West€Truck€Stop,€but€the€corporation€does.€€As€aÐ è 8  Ðresult,€ð ðFrank€Webb€d/b/a€East€West€Truck€Stopðð€does€not€exist€as€a€separate€legal€entity.€€When€theÐ Ô$  ÐUnconditional€Guaranty€was€drafted,€for€some€reason€not€explained€in€the€record,€ð ðFrank€Webb€d/b/aÐ À  ÐEast€West€Truck€Stopðð€was€identified€as€both€the€buyer€and€the€obligor.€€Webb€testified€he€neverÐ ¬ü  Ðintended€in€signing€the€various€documents€to€bind€himself€personally€but,€rather,€was€signing€theseÐ ˜è  Ðdocuments€as€an€officer€of€the€corporation.€€Thus,€according€to€Webbððs€testimony,€when€he€signedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Unconditional€Guaranty,€the€corporation€was€guaranteeing€its€own€obligation.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àWebb€argues€since€the€Trial€Court€had€to€supply€an€essential€term€of€theÐ H˜ ÐUnconditional€Guaranty,€i.e.,€who€was€the€ð ðbuyerðð,€the€Statute€of€Frauds€prohibits€enforcement€ofÐ 4„ Ðthis€document.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Lambert€v.€Home€Federal€Sav.€&€Loan€Assððnóó,€481€S.W.2d€770,€773€(Tenn.Ð  p Ð1972)(ð ðThe€general€rule€is€that€the€memorandum,€in€order€to€satisfy€the€statute,€must€contain€theÐ  \ Ðessential€terms€of€the€contract,€expressed€with€such€certainty€that€they€may€be€understood€from€theÐ øH Ðmemorandum€itself€or€some€other€writing€to€which€it€refers€or€with€which€it€is€connected,€withoutÐ ä4 Ðresorting€to€parol€evidence.€€A€memorandum€disclosing€merely€that€a€contract€had€been€made,Ð Ð  Ðwithout€showing€what€the€contract€is,€is€not€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€requirement€of€the€Statute€ofÐ ¼  ÐFrauds€that€there€be€a€memorandum€in€writing€of€the€contract.ðð).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€relevant€part,€the€Statute€of€Frauds€provides:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àò òWriting€required€for€action.€ð!ðó ó€(a)€No€action€shall€beÐ X ¨ Ðbrought:ÐH!˜` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(2)€To€charge€the€defendant€upon€any€special€promise€toÐ  #p! Ðanswer€for€the€debt,€default,€or€miscarriage€of€another€person;ð8ðÐ  $\" Ðunless€the€promise€or€agreement,€upon€which€such€action€shall€beÐ ø$H # Ðbrought,€or€some€memorandum€or€note€thereof,€shall€be€in€writing,Ð ä%4!$ Ðand€signed€by€the€party€to€be€charged€therewith,€or€some€other€personÐ Ð& "% Ðlawfully€authorized€by€such€party.м' #&` x` x ÐÌTenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„101.Ð ”)ä$( Ðâ âÐ €*Ð%) Ðà  àà ` àWebb€argues€the€Trial€Court€essentially€changed€the€identity€of€the€ð ðbuyerðð€on€theÐ ° Ðâ âUnconditional€Guaranty€when€it€concluded€the€buyer€whose€debt€Webb€was€guaranteeing€was€theÐ œì Ðcorporate€entity.€€We€will€assume€the€identity€of€the€buyer€is€an€essential€term€of€the€UnconditionalÐ ˆØ ÐGuaranty.€€What€we€must€decide€then€is€whether€the€Trial€Court€committed€reversible€error€inÐ tÄ Ðfinding€the€ð ðbuyerðð€to€be€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòCreative€Resource€Management,€Inc.,€v.€Soskinóó,€No.€01„A„01„9808„CH„00016,Ð 8 ˆ Ð1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€788€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€25,€1998),€òòno€appl.€perm.€appeal€filedóó,€weÐ $ t Ðobserved:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThis€court€has€held€that€the€very€nature€of€a€guarantee€is€theÐ è 8  Ðobligation€of€a€guarantor€in€addition€to€the€obligation€to€be€secured.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòVillines€v.€Parham-Lindsey€Groc.€Co.óó,€6€Tenn.€App.€254€(1927).ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à"A€guaranty€obligating€only€the€corporation€would€not€in€anyÐ ˜è  Ðway€add€security€to€the€obligation€of€the€corporation,€because€theÐ „Ô  Ðcorporation€was€already€fully€obligated€as€principal."òò€€Cone€Oil€Co.,Ð pÀ ÐInc.€v.€Greenóó,€669€S.W.2d€662,€664€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1983).Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€òòConeóó€court€concludes€that€"€...€a€guaranty€of€one's€ownÐ 4„ Ðobligation€is€an€exercise€in€futility."€€669€S.W.2d€662,€664€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð  p ÐApp.€1983).Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àòòConeóó€finds€strong€support€in€other€jurisdictions.€€Inòò€KordickÐ ä4 Ðv.€Merchants€National€Bank€&€Trust€Co.€of€Indianapolisóó,€496€N.E.2dÐ Ð  Ð119,€the€Indiana€Court€of€Appeals€was€called€upon€to€determineÐ ¼  Ðwhether€or€not€the€signature€of€Nicholas€Kordick€as€"president"Ð ¨ø Ðbound€him€personally€as€guarantor€of€the€debt€of€his€corporationÐ ”ä Ð"Fortune".€€The€corporation€defaulted€and€bankrupted€and€the€bankÐ €Ð Ðbrought€suit€against€Kordick€individually€on€the€guarantee.€€RelyingÐ l¼ Ðon€òòRoy€v.€Davidson€Equipmentóó,€423€So.€2d€496€(Fl.€App.€1982),€theÐ X ¨ ÐòòKordickóó€court€held:ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàIn€the€case€at€hand,€it€would€likewise€be€meaninglessÐ #l! Ðfor€Fortune€to€guarantee€its€own€debt€because€it€wouldÐ $X" Ðadd€nothing€to€the€existing€obligation€to€Merchants.€Ð ô$D # ÐMoreover,€the€guaranty€obligation€was€not€affected€byÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€release€of€the€indebtedness€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðborrower--Fortune--an€obvious€paradox€if€FortuneÐ ¸'#& Ðwere€the€guarantor.€€Thus,€we€must€conclude€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlanguage€of€the€guaranty€specifically€negates€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âsignature€as€having€been€made€in€a€representativeÐ |*Ì%) Ðcapacity,€and€Kordick€was€personally€obligated€on€theÐ ° Ðguaranty€agreement.Ðœì¸ ¸  Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à496€N.E.2d€119,€124€(Ind.€App.€1986).ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àOther€cases€applying€the€same€rule€areòò€Beradi€v.€HardwareÐ L œ ÐWholesalers,€Inc.óó,€625€N.E.2d€1259€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1993);òò€Roy€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐDavidson€Equipment,€Inc.óó,€423€So.€2d€496€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1982);Ð $ t ÐòòRicker€v.€B-W€Acceptance€Corpóó.,€349€F.2d€892€(10òòthóó€Cir.€1965)€andÐ  ` ÐòòDann€v.€Team€Bankóó,€788€S.W.2d€182€(Tex.€App.€1990).Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌòòCreative€Resource€Management,óó€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€788€at€*5,€*6.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àWebb€admitted€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€did€business€as€East€West€Truck€Stop.€Ð ¬ü  ÐWe€find€no€basis€to€allow€the€corporation€to€conduct€business€under€an€assumed€name€and€thenÐ ˜è  Ðprohibit€enforcement€of€the€Unconditional€Guaranty€because€the€assumed€name,€rather€than€theÐ „Ô  Ðcorporate€name,€was€utilized€in€the€document.€€The€documents€in€the€record€show€the€ð ðbuyerðð€wasÐ pÀ Ðthe€corporate€entity.€€The€invoices€are€sufficiently€connected€to€the€Unconditional€Guaranty€to€showÐ \¬ Ðwith€certainty€this€essential€term€of€the€contract,€who€the€ð ðbuyerðð€is.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Brandel€v.€MooreÐ H˜ ÐMortgage€and€Investment€Co.óó,€774€S.W.2d€600,€605€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(ð ð[T]he€requirement€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€statute€is€met€by€the€signatures€of€plaintiffs€on€some,€although€not€all,€of€the€documents.€€It€is€notÐ  p Ðnecessary€that€the€party€to€be€charged€sign€each€paper€writing€forming€a€part€of€the€agreement€whereÐ  \ Ðthe€writings€on€their€face€relate€to€one€another.ðð)€€Kelsoððs€invoices€show€the€fuel€was€ð ðSold€To:€East„Ð øH ÐWest€Truck€Stop,€Inc.ðð€€When€payment€was€not€forthcoming,€Kelso€drafted€the€UnconditionalÐ ä4 ÐGuaranty€as€additional€security€for€the€outstanding€debt€and,€in€return,€took€ð ðthe€pressure€offðð€Webb.€Ð Ð  ÐAlthough€it€would€have€been€more€accurate€to€list€the€correct€name€of€the€corporate€entity€as€theÐ ¼  Ðð ðbuyerðð,€we€believe€the€ð ðbuyerðð€was€sufficiently€identified€for€purposes€of€satisfying€the€Statute€ofÐ ¨ø ÐFrauds,€especially€in€light€of€€Webbððs€admission€the€corporation€did€business€as€East€West€TruckÐ ”ä ÐStop.€€The€Trial€Courtððs€concluding€the€ð ðbuyerðð€was€the€corporate€entity€and€that€Webb€personallyÐ €Ð Ðguaranteed€this€corporate€debt€prevented€the€Unconditional€Guaranty€from€being€ð ðan€exercise€inÐ l¼ Ðfutility.ðð€€òòCreative€Resource€Management,€supraóó.€€We€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€judgment€on€thisÐ X ¨ Ðissue.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àWebbððs€next€argument€centers€around€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€there€was€adequateÐ #l! Ðconsideration€to€support€the€Unconditional€Guaranty.€€Webb€argues€the€ð ðconsideration€for€theÐ $X" Ðguaranty€as€stated€on€the€face€of€the€instrument€is€the€sale€of€goods€(i.e.€fuel)€to€Frank€Webb€d/b/aÐ ô$D # ÐEast€West€Truck€Stop€.€.€.€,€not€to€the€customer€shown€on€the€invoices,€East€West€Truck€Stop€Inc.ðð€Ð à%0!$ ÐBecause€the€Trial€Court€found€the€consideration€to€be€forbearance€to€pursue€collection,€WebbÐ Ì&"% Ðcontends€the€Trial€Court€improperly€used€parol€evidence€to€find€consideration,€in€violation€of€theÐ ¸'#& ÐStatute€of€Frauds.€€We€disagree.€€The€Unconditional€Guaranty€states€the€consideration€is€the€ð ðsaleÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€goods€ð8ð€and€other€good€and€valuable€consideration.ðð€€Webb€admitted€he€signed€the€documentsÐ )à$( Ðso€Kelso€would€forbear€taking€legal€action€(i.e.€not€ð ðpressureðð€him),€and€this€result€was€achievedÐ |*Ì%) Ðafter€he€signed€the€document.€€This€is€certainly€ð ðother€good€and€valuable€considerationðð€to€supportÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€agreement.€€We€do€not€believe€the€Statute€of€Frauds€required€Kelso€to€list€every€possible€formÐ ° Ðof€consideration€supporting€the€Unconditional€Guarantee,€assuming€the€consideration€is€required€toÐ œì Ðbe€in€writing.€€òòSeeóó€òòLove€and€Amos€Coal€Co.€v.€United€Mine€Workers€of€America,€óó€53€Tenn.€App.€37,Ð ˆØ Ð56,€378€S.W.2d€430,439€(1963)(discussing€cases€which€observed€ð ðit€is€not€necessary€that€theÐ tÄ Ðconsideration€of€the€promise€be€stated€in€writing€in€order€to€maintain€an€action€under€the€Statute€ofÐ `° ÐFrauds.ðð).€€We€also€note€that€the€record€shows€that€Kelso€continued,€at€least€for€some€time€after€theÐ L œ Ðexecution€of€the€Unconditional€Guaranty,€to€sell€goods€to€the€ð ðbuyer.ððÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€final€issue€on€appeal€is€Defendantsðð€claim€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€dismissingÐ  ` Ðtheir€counterclaim€wherein€they€asserted€the€interest€charged€by€Kelso€was€usurious€and€in€violationÐ ü L  Ðof€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„14„101,€òòet€seq.óó€€In€its€judgment,€the€Trial€Court€awarded€ð ðlate€chargesðð€onÐ è 8  Ðthe€balance€owed€on€the€invoices€at€the€annual€rate€of€18%.€€Defendants€claim€the€ð ðlate€chargesððÐ Ô$  Ðwere€actually€interest.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Kelso€claims€they€were€late€charges€and€not€interest,€relying€on€òòWilson€v.Ð À  ÐDealyóó,€222€Tenn.€196,€200,€434€S.W.2d€835,€837€(1968)(ð ðWhether€a€charge€imposed€because€of€lateÐ ¬ü  Ðpayment€of€a€debt€is€compensation€for€the€continued€use€of€the€money€owed€depends€upon€whetherÐ ˜è  Ðthe€late€charge€is€made€as€consideration€for€an€extension€of€the€time€for€payment€or€as€compensationÐ „Ô  Ðfor€the€damage€done€to€the€creditor€by€the€debtorððs€failure€to€pay€his€debt€when€due.ðð).€€The€onlyÐ pÀ Ðargument€advanced€by€Defendants€on€this€issue€is€that€the€Trial€Court€found€forbearance€to€be€theÐ \¬ Ðconsideration€for€the€Unconditional€Guaranty.€€Defendants€argue,€therefore,€payment€for€thisÐ H˜ Ðforbearance€is€properly€classified€as€interest€under€the€relevant€statute.€€The€Trial€Court€did€findÐ 4„ Ðforbearance€to€be€sufficient€consideration€for€the€Unconditional€Guaranty.€€Plaintiff,€however,€is€notÐ  p Ðseeking€these€specific€damages€or€compensation€based€solely€on€the€terms€of€the€UnconditionalÐ  \ ÐGuaranty.€€Rather,€this€compensation€is€sought€pursuant€to€the€open€account,€payment€of€which€wasÐ øH Ðguaranteed€by€the€Unconditional€Guaranty.€€The€late€charges€imposed€by€the€invoices€were€not€madeÐ ä4 Ðas€consideration€for€an€extension€of€time€for€payment€as€the€invoices,€by€their€terms,€never€agreedÐ Ð  Ðto€any€extension€of€time€for€payment.€€The€late€charges€under€the€invoices€constitute€compensationÐ ¼  Ðfor€the€damage€done€to€Kelso€by€the€corporationððs€failure€to€pay€the€debt€when€due.€€òòSee€Idóó.€€AsÐ ¨ø Ðstated,€the€only€argument€advanced€by€Defendants€is€that€the€late€charges€awarded€must€constituteÐ ”ä Ðinterest€pursuant€to€the€terms€of€the€Unconditional€Guaranty.€€Since€the€terms€of€the€UnconditionalÐ €Ð ÐGuaranty€are€not€relevant€insofar€as€to€the€purpose€of€the€ð ðlate€chargesðð€provided€for€in€the€invoices,Ð l¼ Ðwe€reject€this€argument,€and€find€no€error€by€the€Trial€Court€relevant€to€this€issue.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÐ  0"€  Ðà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ ˆØ ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðcosts€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellants€East€West€Truck€Stop,€Inc.,€and€Frank€Webb,€andÐ `° Ðtheir€surety.Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE