WPC# =UBf % 0t\ 0 0\ 0 0r~ L 0< D+  0 0=G 0 AQ 0b 0D# \gnw 0rzU:w@&4f 0Jz 0T D3 BK 0^h 0h 0r. 0| 0 0 1u2 0d U*B)=DCf AK v~v\  `*Times New RomanTT'  The Plaintiffs appeal the trial courts final judgment which up (Authorized User(0Authorized User .   h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW<5T.footerfooter   !        >4X` hp x (#>P8page numberpage numberXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWV!:footnote texfootnote text          `:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT(e2i$ !)))   'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(e2i$ !)))   ($    (e2i$ !)))      C<< c(f(3$ !)))       0  (#$  0  HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLL3|x#\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP%2A`ArialTTomanTTXXX2PQXP(J$~4~4~4  +K AZ"Arial Regular #U##g#####Ӏ##B\J#V2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  $$$$'dxd d2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   &'()*+ ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d66667Border 1dd 7C << G  !   55   YYY FILED5X October31,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.5AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#        5Inhisdeposition,Lomaxtestifiedthathepurchasedonepieceofequipmentworth$400or$500fortheHospitaljobs.Onappeal,however,Lomaxdoesnotcontendthatthispurchaseresultedinunjustinjury.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! .    \RA'\   ` X\RA'\55X7.vdXXd7 @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSONDANLOMAX,d/b/aCOMMERCIAL )CLEANINGCONTRACTORS,  ) R897A1-j|A`  `@R      )  Plaintiff/Appellee,  )MadisonChanceryNo.51613      )VS.      )AppealNo.02A019706CH00116      )JACKSONMADISONCOUNTY  )GENERALHOSPITALDISTRICT, )      )  Defendant/Appellant. ) @ APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFMADISONCOUNTY@ ATJACKSON,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEJOEC.MORRIS,CHANCELLOR GREGORYD.JORDAN JEFFERYG.FOSTERRAINEY,KIZER,BUTLER,REVIERE&BELL,P.L.C. Jackson,TennesseeAttorneysforAppellant EDWINC.TOWNSEND TOWNSENDANDTOWNSEND,ATTORNEYS Parsons,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellee REVERSEDANDRENDERED          ALANE.HIGHERS,J.CONCUR:W.FRANKCRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.  73XXdd7 Inthisbreachofcontractaction,DefendantJacksonMadisonCountyGeneralHospitalDistrict(Hospital)appealsthetrialcourtsorderawardingajudgmentof$35,390toPlaintiff/AppelleeDanLomax,d/b/aCommercialCleaningContracts.Forthereasonsstatedhereinafter,wereversethetrialcourtsjudgmentandrenderajudgmentinfavoroftheHospital. InMarch1996,LomaxsuedtheHospital,claimingthattheHospitalhadbreachedtwocontractswithLomaxforwindowwashingservices.ThefirstsuchcontractwasevidencedbyapurchaseorderissuedbytheHospitalonDecember8,1994,andcoveringathreeyearperiod.Thesecondcontract,alsoevidencedbyaHospitalpurchaseorder,wasissuedFebruary1,1995,andpurportedtocoverathreeyearperiod.ThepurchaseorderswereissuedonformspreparedbytheHospital,andtheorderscontainedlinesfortheHospitalsauthorizedsignature;however,neitherpurchaseorderwassignedbytheHospitalsauthorizedrepresentative. LomaxscomplaintallegedthattheHospitalunilaterallyterminatedbothservicecontractspriortotheterminationofthethreeyeartermsreferencedthereinandafterLomaxhadperformedsubstantialservicesthereunder.Lomaxsoughtspecificperformanceofbothcontractsand,alternatively,ajudgmentintheamountof$35,390,thebalanceallegedlydueunderthepurchaseorders. Initsamendedanswer,theHospitalraised,interalia,thedefenseoftheStatuteofFrauds.Bothpartiessubsequentlyfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgmentontheissueoftheenforceabilityofthecontracts. Initsfinalorder,thetrialcourtawardedLomaxajudgmentof$35,390,plusinterest,basedonthecourtsrulingthattheundisputedfactsbroughtthiscasewithinthepartialperformanceexceptiontotheStatuteofFrauds.Thisappealfollowed. TennesseesStatuteofFraudsiscodifiedatT.C.A.292101,andprovidesthat8 8  &  (a) Noactionshallbebrought:8 8  ....'  8 8  (5) Uponanyagreementorcontractwhichisnottobeperformedwithinthespaceofone(1)yearfromthemakingthereof;8 8 unlessthepromiseoragreement,uponwhichsuchactionshallbebrought,orsomememorandumornotethereof,shallbeinwriting,andsignedbythepartytobechargedtherewith,or&  someotherpersonbyhimthereuntolawfullyauthorized.̜T.C.A.292101(Supp.1996).'   InTrewv.Ogle,767S.W.2d662(Tenn.App.1988),thiscourtexplainedtheeffectoftheStatuteofFraudsontheenforceabilityofcontracts:̜8 8  AnagreementthatfallswithintheStatuteofFraudsisnotvoidbutisvoidableattheinstanceofeitherparty.Sneedv.Bradley,36Tenn.301(1856);75Am.Jur.2d,StatuteofFrauds,513(1974).Thus,ifeitherpartydisaffirmstheoralcontract,noaction,eitherforspecificperformanceorfordamages,canbemaintainedonthe&  contract.73Am.Jur.2d,supra,513,51718.̜Trewv.Ogle,767S.W.2dat664.'   AcommonlyrecognizedexceptiontotheStatuteofFraudsmaybefoundinthedoctrineofpartperformance.Underthisdoctrine, anotherwiseunenforceableoralcontractcanbethebasisofanactionifoneofthepartieshasperformed.Trewv.Ogle,767S.W.2dat664.Inthepresentcase,thepartiesagreethattheStatuteofFraudsapplies,inasmuchasthecontractsdonotcontaintheHospitalsauthorizedsignatureandtheservicescontractedforcoveraperiodofthreeyears.Trewv.Ogle,767S.W.2dat664(indicatingthatStatuteofFraudsappliedtocontractinwhichperformancewouldtakeplaceoverfouryearperiod).Thepartiesalsoagreethatthiscasewasappropriateforsummaryjudgmentbecausethematerialfactsarenotindispute.SeeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,21415(Tenn.1993).Theissueinthiscase,therefore,iswhetherLomaxspartialperformanceofthecontractstakesthepartiesagreementsoutoftheStatuteofFrauds.SeeBuicev.ScruggsEquip.Co.,250S.W.2d44,48(Tenn.1952). Afteracarefulreviewoftherecord,weconcludethatthedoctrineofpartperformancedoesnotapplytothiscaseand,thus,thatthetrialcourterredinenteringajudgmentinfavorofLomaxonthecontracts.Tobeapplicable,thedoctrineofpartperformancedoesnotrequiremerelythattheplaintiffperformedservicesunderthecontractsuedupon.Thedoctrineadditionallyrequiresthattheplaintiff,inperformanceorpursuanceofthecontract,alteredhispositioninsuchawaythatitwouldbeunjustandunconscionablenottoenforcethecontract.Blasingamev.AmericanMaterials,Inc.,654S.W.2d659,663(Tenn.1983);Buicev.ScruggsEquip.Co.,250S.W.2dat48;Trewv.Ogle,767S.W.2dat665;73Am.Jur.2dStatuteofFrauds408(1974). Inthiscase,therecordcontainsnoevidencetosupportLomaxscontentionthatheunjustlyalteredhispositioninrelianceonthecontractswiththeHospital.Lomaxassertsthathealteredhispositionbyperformingthecontractsformorethanayearandbyholdinghimselfoutasreadytoperformtheremainderofthecontracts.Thisassertionfailstoexplain,however,howLomaxsperformancesoalteredhispositionthatequityentitleshimtospecificperformanceofthecontractsordamages.Lomaxdoesnotcontendthatheperformedservicesunderthecontractsforwhichhewasnotpaid.Moreover,Lomaxdoesnotcontendthathemadeanyexpendituresinrelianceonthecontracts :   כorthathewasunabletoperformotherjobsorservicesbecauseofhiscontractualobligationstotheHospital.See,e.g.,Blasingamev.AmericanMaterials,Inc.,654S.W.2d659,660,663(Tenn.1983)(applyingdoctrineofpartperformancewhereevidenceshowedthatemployeerelocatedtoTennesseeinrelianceuponfutureemployerspromiseofcorporatestock);Foustv.Carney,329S.W.2d826,828(Tenn.1959)(applyingdoctrineofpartperformancewhereevidenceshowedthat,inrelianceuponemployerspromiseofraiseandcorporatestock,employeerejectedcomparablejobofferfromemployerscompetitor);Allenv.ElliottReynoldsMotorCo.,230S.W.2d418,420(Tenn.App.1950)(applyingdoctrineofpartperformancewhere,inrelianceondefendantspromiseofexclusiveautomobiledealership,plaintiffincurredexpensesinconvertingapartmenthousetoautomobilesalesroomandgarage). InasmuchasthepartiesagreethattheStatuteofFraudsappliestothesubjectcontracts,andinasmuchaswehaveconcludedthat,undertheundisputedfacts,thedoctrineofpartperformancedoesnottakethecontractsoutoftheStatuteofFrauds,thetrialcourtsjudgmentisherebyreversed,andjudgmentisrenderedinfavoroftheHospital.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoLomax,forwhichexecutionmayissueifϜnecessary.        򀀀        HIGHERS,J.CONCUR:򀀀CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.򀀀LILLARD,J.