ÿWPCé =¡S¬ÏêˆÂ¤­Ó›¸ÇA÷ÂÖ­¥">•mù{’îBܬ$Çn«Å±³[ÏôæÆF·Ú*|q 4 Žº–5]¢˜¯p™î×K’ ¾v›o++9Äo…U%E)æÝK* < •ýC‚o o0‚u¼ÝÙ[ð&MEÄF x®@ylV‚Û ÌSEèÒmü¨ù(ßáÆuGõA(WÔ^Œ F™?ñ’$Ziœ 1>Y <é÷å $òŸ‹QÉ@¸rûóqœÕæ¦_³1$y¶J¥g¼C_çÖÅq!É(e¸º‘œü «°”Gá ì@kDyù°/'çN*ÞB¿®:÷„ËÍ,|N =üGuîV0À´€o ³† zľö%yS¶ N°pa´{ }ç[ÌפfG ›¯½£*Â"™ÜÐ/þö9EáD“[¯¦Ìp¯‘':y€ëþ0ñ‡ž:HÉýü/\µÃwmýÖð/ü¼,çeQv_8e˜ÏŠ_êÈÌ=Ӯ͗¦­ìÕDZHàƒþ‡ËwpËa±èöùÛöØŸjPÒn(¼‘f”e®Ïiæô#—NœÂµ‘—_¼çŽ.ù_õì–ˆwq ›ìýtb %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ U™ Æî Æ´ÆzÆ@ 0DNJ*LfvEÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜbÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ 0ëææææ BÑÑ 0¤î D3’ D-Å 0Kòò AS=Æ 0¤V 0Dú A«>»Ê}/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularb\z/ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 KÝ ƒR­$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾I ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKing€and€Plaintiff€met€in€the€late€1980s;€Plaintiff€was€recently€divorced€and€King€was€in€the€process€of€gettingÐ ° Ða€divorce.€€The€two€men€decided€to€share€a€house€in€order€to€save€money.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  uncontroverted \Ý ƒR­$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾I ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€his€brief,€Defendant€states€that€Plaintiff€was€not€entitled€to€any€damages,€but€he€expressly€states€that€he€isÐ ° Ðnot€making€an€issue€on€this€appeal€with€respect€to€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€$4,500.- ù-(|G2­$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­¡ò»»Ô d(|3?n$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?n$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€™»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼™»»»ÔÑ8€JMXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÐ™ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼™»îîÐ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€21,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XJMX»¼™ÔÌò òÔ#†¼™»XXJMô#ÔR.€SCOTT€MARTINòòóó€v.€JOHN€CURTIS€KINGòòóóÔ‡XJMX»¼™Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Scott€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€8407€€€€€€Billy€Joe€White,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„03055„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€a€breach€of€contract€case.€€R.€Scott€Martin€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€sued€John€Curtis€King€(ð ðDefendantðð),Ð xÈ  Ðalleging€that€Defendant€had€breached€his€agreement€to€give€Plaintiff€a€3%€interest€in€DefendantððsÐ d´ Ðlandfill€venture.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€partiesðð€agreement€did€not€pertain€to€or€cover€theÐ P  Ðparticular€landfill€Ô_ÔbusinessÔ_Ô€out€of€which€Plaintiff€sought€a€3%€interest.€€The€trial€court€did€concludeÐ <Œ Ðthat€Plaintiff€was€entitled€to€a€judgment€against€Defendant€for€$4,500€for€monetary€contributionsÐ (x Ðmade€by€Plaintiff€in€connection€with€the€partiesðð€agreement.€€Plaintiff€appeals,€contending€that€theÐ d Ðtrial€court€erred€in€finding€that€a€novation€had€occurred,€in€admitting€parol€evidence,€and€inÐ P Ðcalculating€damages.€€We€affirm.€€€Ð ì< ÐÓrÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ Ä ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼™»àXJMi#ÔÔ‡XJMX.¼™ÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ð ˆØ ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌPhilip€R.€Ô_ÔCryeÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Clinton,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€R.€Scott€Martin.Ð L œ ÐÌJohnny€V.€Ô_ÔDunawayÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLaFolletteÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€John€Curtis€King.Ð $"t! ÐÓÔÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼™»XXJM #ÔÔ‡XJMX»¼™ÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼™»XXJM† #ÔÔ‡XJMX»¼™ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓI.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌÓ Óà  àDefendant€began€his€career€in€the€garbage€business€in€1970.€€Five€years€later,€he€firstÐ ¬'ü"' Ðattempted€to€establish€a€landfill€in€Scott€County,€but€to€no€avail.€€In€the€late€1980s,€Defendant€hiredÐ ˜(è#( Ðan€attorney€to€assist€him€in€his€second€attempt€to€develop€a€landfill,€which€he€referred€to€as€theÐ „)Ô$) ÐRoberta€Sanitary€Landfill.€€Around€the€same€time,€Defendant€signed€an€option€to€purchaseÐ p*À%* Ðapproximately€1,200€acres€in€Scott€County€for€the€landfill€site.€€On€January€3,€1989,€Defendant€filedÐ \+¬&+ Ða€Disposal€Facility€Permit€application€in€his€own€name€with€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÐ H,˜', ÐEnvironment€and€Conservation€(ð ðthe€Ô_ÔTDECÔ_Ôðð).€€However,€the€Ô_ÔTDECÔ_Ô€never€acted€on€his€application.€Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_ÔIn€addition,€Scott€County,€acting€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„211„701€(2001)òòóó,€deniedÐ ° ÐDefendant€the€right€to€construct€the€landfill€at€that€time.€€Defendant€then€filed€suit€against€the€county,Ð œì Ðchallenging€the€countyððs€action€in€denying€the€landfill€permit.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àBy€the€end€of€1990,€Defendant€had€borrowed€over€$250,000€to€develop€the€landfill,€and€heÐ `° Ðwas€in€need€of€another€$3,050,000€in€order€to€complete€the€landfill,€re„option€the€1200€acres,€andÐ L œ Ðhire€an€attorney.€€Defendant€apparently€told€his€son,€Steve€King€(ð ðKingðð),€of€his€financial€difficulties,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€King€relayed€this€information€to€Plaintiff,€who€was€sharing€a€house€with€King€at€the€time.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р$ t ÐAccording€to€Defendant,€Plaintiff€represented€to€him€that€ð ðhe€was€going€to€get€a€three€million€dollarÐ  ` Ðinvestorðð€for€the€landfill.€€After€speaking€with€Defendant€and€ascertaining€his€needs€for€the€project,Ð ü L  ÐPlaintiff€contacted€a€few€potential€investors€and€researched€waste€companies.€€In€addition,€heÐ è 8  Ðobtained€contact€information€regarding€an€attorney,€George€Dillard€(ð ðDillardðð).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àOn€December€15,€1990,€Plaintiff,€King,€and€Kingððs€wife€drove€to€Defendantððs€home€inÐ ¬ü  ÐOneida€with€a€Letter€of€Agreement€(ð ðthe€Agreementðð)€that€had€been€prepared€by€Plaintiffððs€attorney.€Ð ˜è  ÐDefendant€testified€at€trial€that€he€was€expecting€King€and€that€he€was€prepared€to€sign€an€agreementÐ „Ô  Ðgiving€King€15%€of€Defendantððs€interest€in€the€landfill€in€exchange€for€Kingððs€assistance€inÐ pÀ Ðprocuring€investors.€€Defendant€met€Plaintiff€for€the€first€time€when€the€group€arrived€at€DefendantððsÐ \¬ Ðhome.€€At€that€time,€King€apparently€asked€Defendant€to€give€Plaintiff€a€3%€interest€in€the€landfill,Ð H˜ Ðthereby€reducing€Kingððs€interest€to€12%.€€Defendant€agreed.€€The€Agreement€states,€in€pertinent€part,Ð 4„ Ðas€follows:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€Agreement,€entered€into€this€15€day€of€December,€1990,€betweenÐ øH Ð[Defendant]€and€[King€and€Plaintiff].Ðä4` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð ¼  ÐÌÓpÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFor€and€in€consideration€of€services€rendered€by€[King€and€Plaintiff]Ð ”ä Ðfor€and€on€behalf€of€[Defendant]€in€association€with€a€landfill€projectÐ €Ð Ðlocated€in€Oneida,€Scott€County,€Tennessee,€[Defendant]€does€herebyÐ l¼ Ðagree€to€transfer€and€convey€a€twelve€(12%)€percent€interest€in€hisÐ X ¨ Ðbusiness€known€as€ð ðRoberta€Sanitary€Landfillðð€and€the€associatedÐ D!” Ðrecycling€business€to€[King],€and€[Defendant]€does€hereby€agree€toÐ 0"€  Ðtransfer€and€convey€a€three€(3%)€percent€interest€in€his€businessÐ #l! Ðknown€as€ð ðRoberta€Sanitary€Landfillðð€and€the€associated€recyclingÐ $X" Ðbusiness€to€[Plaintiff].Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÓéÓThe€Agreement€was€then€signed€by€Defendant,€King,€and€Plaintiff.€€Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àFollowing€the€execution€of€the€Agreement,€Plaintiff€stated€that€he€continued€to€seek€fundingÐ ° Ðfor€the€landfill€venture.€€He€and€King€delivered€a€$15,000€check€to€Dillard€to€retain€his€services€forÐ œì ÐDefendant.€€While€Plaintiff€was€able€to€procure€a€letter€of€intent€to€buy€the€landfill€project€from€aÐ ˆØ Ðcompany€called€United€Waste,€Defendant€rejected€the€letter€as€a€ð ðridiculous€offer.ðð€€In€March,€1991,Ð tÄ ÐPlaintiff€paid€a€$2,000€retainer€to€attorney€Doug€Overbey€for€his€services€in€the€landfill€venture.Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€June€14,€1991,€Defendant€signed€a€memorandum€of€agreement€with€the€owners€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ð1200€acres€of€land€in€order€to€preserve€his€option€to€buy€the€property.€€One€year€later,€Defendant€paidÐ $ t ÐKing€$10,000€to€repurchase€Kingððs€12%€interest€in€the€landfill€project.€€Later€that€year,€DefendantððsÐ  ` Ðlitigation€over€the€landfill€project€came€to€an€end€when€the€trial€court€held€that€the€action€of€theÐ ü L  Ðcounty€in€denying€the€landfill€permit€was€arbitrary.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€February,€1993,€Defendant€resubmitted€his€landfill€application€to€TDEC;€he€listed€himselfÐ À  Ðas€the€applicant,€as€well€as€the€Roberta€Sanitary€Landfill.€€In€late€1993,€Defendant€stoppedÐ ¬ü  Ðcommunicating€with€Plaintiff,€and€Dillard€told€Plaintiff€that€the€Roberta€Sanitary€Landfill€wasÐ ˜è  Ðð ðsitting€still.ððÐ „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€1995,€Defendant€formed€a€new€corporation,€which€he€called€Scott€County€Solid€WasteÐ \¬ ÐDisposal€Company€(ð ðScott€Solid€Wasteðð);€Defendant€was€the€sole€shareholder€of€this€corporation.€Ð H˜ ÐDefendant€formed€the€corporation€for€the€purpose€of€purchasing€the€existing€Scott€County€LandfillÐ 4„ Ðin€Helenwood.€€By€hauling€waste€from€the€surrounding€counties€to€the€Scott€County€Landfill,Ð  p ÐDefendant€was€able€to€make€enough€money€to€renew€his€application€for€the€Roberta€SanitaryÐ  \ ÐLandfill.€€On€April€29,€1997,€Defendant€was€issued€a€permit€in€the€name€of€Scott€Solid€Waste.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€get€the€landfill€operational,€Defendant€was€required€to€post€a€$6€million€bond€andÐ Ð  Ðinstall€leach€fields,€pools,€and€composite,€òòi.e.óó,€ð ðengineered€clay€plus€synthetic,ðð€liners.€€DefendantÐ ¼  Ðwas€never€able€to€raise€enough€money€to€complete€these€requirements.€€As€a€result,€Defendant€wasÐ ¨ø Ðforced€to€sell€all€of€Scott€Solid€Wasteððs€corporate€stock€and€other€company€holdings€to€LibertyÐ ”ä ÐWaste€Services€(ð ðLibertyðð).€€Liberty€purchased€Scott€Solid€Waste€in€September,€1998,€for€$6€millionÐ €Ð Ðð!ð€$4€million€for€the€corporate€stock€and€$2€million€for€the€proposed€landfill€site.€€The€owner€of€theÐ l¼ Ðproposed€landfill€site€was€paid€$1.1€million,€and€Defendant,€as€the€option€holder,€received€$900,000.€Ð X ¨ ÐDefendant€also€received€an€initial€payment€of€$1€million€for€the€sale€of€his€stock;€the€balance€wasÐ D!” Ðto€be€paid€in€nine€yearly€installments€of€$150,000€each,€with€a€final€payment€of€$1.65€million€dueÐ 0"€  Ðin€2008.€€After€paying€debts€of€more€than€$1.4€million,€Defendant€had€just€over€$150,000€from€hisÐ #l! Ðinitial€payment€from€Liberty.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àOn€October€18,€1999,€Plaintiff€sued€Defendant,€claiming€that€the€parties€had€an€agreementÐ à%0!$ Ðwhereby€Defendant€would€give€Plaintiff€a€3%€interest€in€the€Roberta€Sanitary€Landfill.€€PlaintiffÐ Ì&"% Ðaverred€that€Defendant€breached€that€agreement€by€selling€the€Scott€Solid€Waste€landfill€businessÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€$6€million€and€not€giving€Plaintiff€the€3%€to€which€he€allegedly€was€due.€€A€trial€on€the€meritsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwas€conducted€on€August€13,€2002.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€trial€court€issued€its€rulingÐ )à$( Ðfrom€the€bench:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àGentlemen,€Iððve€listened€to€this€case€practically€all€day€and€counselÐ ° Ðhas€done€the€best€they€could€with€what€they€have.€€You€canððt€makeÐ œì Ðthe€facts;€you€just€have€to€present€them.€€They€have€been€presentedÐ ˆØ Ðvery€well€under€the€circumstances.€€This€is€a€[convoluted]€mess.€€ItÐ tÄ Ðseems€like€it€would€take€an€expert€to€mess€up€an€agreement€this€bad.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Plaintiff€and€King]€found€[Defendant]€at€a€desperate€time.€€HeÐ 8 ˆ Ðneeded€desperate€measures.€€I€guess€this€[Agreement]€is€a€desperateÐ $ t Ðinstrument.€€It€relates€basically€that€[Defendant]€had€given€[PlaintiffÐ  ` Ðand€King]€a€percentage€of€[Defendantððs]€business€for€things€thatÐ ü L  Ð[Plaintiff€and€King]€have€done.€€Of€course,€the€fact€of€the€matter€isÐ è 8  Ð[Plaintiff€and€King]€had€done€nothing,€very€little,€to€say€the€least,Ð Ô$  Ðmaybe€a€phone€call€or€two,€practically€nothing€at€that€time.€€TheseÐ À  Ðpeople€clearly€had€an€agreement€that€[Plaintiff€and€King]€wouldÐ ¬ü  Ðprovide€investors,€financing€and€help€[Defendant]€get€this€businessÐ ˜è  Ðsold€and€on€the€way.€[Plaintiff€and€King]€were€unsuccessful€generallyÐ „Ô  Ðin€that.€€They€made€some€efforts.€€They€contacted€people.€€None€ofÐ pÀ Ðthem€were€experts€in€this€type€of€thing€and€they€did€what€they€could.€Ð \¬ ÐThey€got€some€people€to€look€and€nobody€bought.€€This€deal€goes€onÐ H˜ Ðfor€years€through€this€lawsuit.Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àItððs€ungodly€at€the€engineering€and€legal€expense€in€this€matter€thatÐ  \ Ðthis€thing€got€to.€€Actually,€got€up€in€about€1995,€it€kind€of€got€into€aÐ øH Ðnovation.€[Defendant]€got€into€[Scott€Solid€Waste]€business€andÐ ä4 Ðincorporated€that€business.€€It€was€totally€separate€from€what€theseÐ Ð  Ðparties€were€originally€involved€in,€totally€separate,€althoughÐ ¼  Ð[Defendant]€personally€kept€working€on€this€landfill€and€so€forth.Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBy€some€measure,€nobody€knows€how,€this€permit€comes€out€in€theÐ €Ð Ðname€of€[Scott€Solid€Waste].€€Theyððve€never€filed€an€application€andÐ l¼ Ðnobody€knows€how€it€happened.€€All€at€once€there€is€a€permit€issued.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€goes€on€for€two€or€three€years€and€[Defendant]€eventually€sells€thisÐ 0"€  Ðbusiness€for€a€considerable€amount€of€money,€but€had€so€muchÐ #l! Ðmoney€in€it€that€there€was€not€near€the€kind€of€profit€that€you€wouldÐ $X" Ðthink.€€With€the€judgments€and€the€lawyersðð€fees€and€all€he€has€had,Ð ô$D # Ð[Defendant]€will€come€out€probably€with€some€profit,€but€not€a€greatÐ à%0!$ Ðdeal.€€Not€only€is€this€landfill€involved€ð!ð€you€have€to€look€ð!ð€at€theÐ Ì&"% Ðtime€[Defendant]€had€a€pretty€good€business€that€he€developed€on€theÐ ¸'#& Ðside€with€this€Scott€County€Landfill,€which€is€totally€separate€as€farÐ ¤(ô#' Ðas€anything€to€do€with€this€[A]greement.Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Court€really€generally€feels€that€[Plaintiff€and€King]€violated€thisÐ ° Ðâ â[A]greement€by€not€producing€anything€worthy€of€helping.€€TheyÐ œì Ðtried€to€help.€€Iððm€sure€they€did€in€good€faith€what€they€could,€but€theyÐ ˆØ Ðwere€unsuccessful€in€those€efforts.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Plaintiff],€apparently€from€the€evidence,€appears€to€have€suppliedÐ L œ Ðtwo€thousand€dollars€to€Doug€Overbey€as€counsel€fees.€€The€CourtÐ 8 ˆ Ðfeels€he€is€entitled€to€recover€that.€€On€a€quantum€meruit€basis€to€tryÐ $ t Ðto€be€fair€in€this€matter,€because€[Plaintiff]€did€some€trips€and€efforts,Ð  ` Ðthe€Court€knows€no€other€way€to€value€his€interest€in€this€failedÐ ü L  Ðbusiness€the€same€as€[King]€was€paid€back€in€1992,€I€think.€€BasedÐ è 8  Ðupon€that,€[Plaintiff€would]€be€entitled€to€recover€twenty„five€hundredÐ Ô$  Ðof€his€contractual€rights,€if€there€is€any€such€thing€in€this€case,€makingÐ À  Ðthe€total€judgment€forty„five€hundred€dollars.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌPlaintiff€then€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment,€contending€that€the€award€of€damagesÐ „Ô  Ðwas€inadequate€and€against€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€Ð pÀ ÐFrom€this€judgment,€Plaintiff€appeals.Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ€AÓà  àIn€this€non„jury€case,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€proceedings€below;€butÐ  \ Ðthe€record€comes€to€us€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€that€we€must€honor€ð ðunless€theÐ øH Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusionsÐ ä4 Ðof€law,€however,€are€accorded€no€such€presumption.€€ò òòòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.ó óóó,€919€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð26,€35€(Tenn.€1996);€ò òòòPresley€v.€Bennettó óóó,€860€S.W.2d€857,€859€(Tenn.€1993).òòóóÔ#†¼™»XXJMä #ÔÔ‡XJMX»¼™ÔÐ ¼  ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð ”ä ÐÌÓYDÓà  àPlaintiff€raises€three€issues€on€appeal.€€First,€Plaintiff€argues€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ l¼ Ðagainst€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€sale€to€Liberty€was€not€a€part€of€the€subject€matter€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€Agreement.€€Second,€Plaintiff€contends€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€receivedÐ D!” Ðtestimony€pertaining€to€discussions€about€Plaintiffððs€duties,€which€testimony,€according€to€Plaintiff,Ð 0"€  Ðvaries€the€terms€of€the€Agreement€and€is€thus€violative€of€the€parol€evidence€rule.€€Finally,€PlaintiffÐ #l! Ðargues€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€Plaintiff€was€notÐ $X" Ðentitled€to€any€damages€in€excess€of€the€$4,500€awarded€to€him€by€the€trial€court.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÓ  ÓA.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÓëGÓà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€in€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court,€in€issuing€its€ruling€from€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbench,€made€the€following€remarks:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àItððs€ungodly€at€the€engineering€and€legal€expense€in€this€matter€thatÐ ° Ðâ âthis€thing€got€to.€€Actually,€got€up€in€about€1995,€òòit€kind€of€got€into€aÐ œì Ðnovationóó.€[Defendant]€got€into€[Scott€Solid€Waste]€business€andÐ ˆØ Ðincorporated€that€business.€€It€was€totally€separate€from€what€theseÐ tÄ Ðparties€were€originally€involved€in,€totally€separate,€althoughÐ `° Ð[Defendant]€personally€kept€working€on€this€landfill€and€so€forth.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€Ô#†¼™»XXJM$D#ÔÔ‡XJMX»¼™ÔOn€the€basis€of€these€remarks,€Plaintiff€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€findingÐ $ t Ðthat€a€ð ðnovationðð€had€occurred.€€Plaintiff€asserts€that,€as€a€novation€constitutes€the€substitution€of€oneÐ  ` Ðcontract€for€another,€all€parties€to€the€original€contract€must€assent€to€the€substitution.€€òòSee€ò òBank€ofÐ ü L  ÐCrockett€v.€Cullipheró óóó,€752€S.W.2d€84,€89€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòò òBlaylockó óóó€òòò òv.€Stephensó óóó,€36€Tenn.Ð è 8  ÐApp.€464,€467,€258€S.W.2d€779,€781€(1953).€€Because,€so€the€argument€goes,€Plaintiff€never€assentedÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€substitution€of€a€new€agreement€for€the€original€agreement,€the€original€agreement€remainedÐ À  Ðin€full€force€and€effect€and€Plaintiff€was€therefore€entitled€to€his€3%€interest.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€issue€by€noting€that€the€trial€court€did€not€make€a€finding€thatÐ „Ô  Ða€novation€had€occurred.€€Rather,€the€trial€court€was€merely€stating€that€the€situation€in€the€instantÐ pÀ Ðcase€was€òòsimilar€óóto€a€novation€in€that€Defendantððs€subsequent€business€dealings€were€completelyÐ \¬ Ðseparate€from€the€business€dealings€contemplated€under€the€Agreement.€€In€fact,€the€trial€court,€afterÐ H˜ Ðmentioning€a€novation,€went€on€to€state€that€Defendantððs€Scott€Solid€Waste€business€was€ð ðtotallyÐ 4„ Ðseparate€from€what€these€parties€were€originally€involved€in.ðð€€Ð  p ÐÌà  à€We€therefore€construe€Plaintiffððs€first€issue€as€asking€this€court€to€find€that€the€evidenceÐ øH Ðpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€sale€of€Scott€Solid€Waste€to€Liberty€wasÐ ä4 Ðnot€a€part€of€the€subject€matter€of€the€Agreement.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€the€Agreement€and€the€testimony€of€the€parties€at€trial€convinces€us€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðsale€of€Scott€Solid€Waste€to€Liberty€was€not,€in€fact,€contemplated€by€the€terms€of€the€Agreement.€Ð ”ä ÐWhen€the€Agreement€was€signed€and€executed€by€the€parties€in€December,€1990,€the€parties€clearlyÐ €Ð Ðintended€that€Plaintiff€and€King€would€assist€Defendant€in€obtaining€financing€so€that€DefendantÐ l¼ Ðcould€start€his€landfill€venture€known€as€the€Roberta€Sanitary€Landfill.€€Three€years€later,€PlaintiffÐ X ¨ Ðhad€done€only€a€minimal€amount€of€work€for€Defendant€and€had€obtained€virtually€no€financing€forÐ D!” ÐDefendant.€€At€that€time,€communication€between€the€parties€ceased.€€òòTwo€years€lateróó,€in€1995,Ð 0"€  ÐDefendant€formed€a€new€corporation,€Scott€Solid€Waste.€€The€evidence€is€uncontroverted€thatÐ #l! ÐPlaintiff€had€nothing€to€do€with€the€formation€of€this€new€corporation.€€Defendant€proceeded€toÐ $X" Ðpurchase€the€Scott€County€Landfill€and€use€the€proceeds€from€that€business€venture€to€renew€hisÐ ô$D # Ðlandfill€application.€€Eventually,€Defendant€was€forced€to€sell€the€new€landfill€business€to€Liberty.€Ð à%0!$ ÐAgain,€there€is€absolutely€no€question€that€Plaintiff€had€nothing€to€do€with€the€purchase€of€the€ScottÐ Ì&"% ÐCounty€Landfill;€the€renewal€of€the€landfill€application;€or€the€sale€of€the€business€to€Liberty.€€ThereÐ ¸'#& Ðis€a€clear€line€of€demarcation€between€the€business€dealings€of€the€parties€under€the€Agreement€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€business€dealings€of€Defendant€which€ultimately€led€to€the€sale€of€the€business€to€Liberty.€Ð )à$( ÐAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€determinationÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€sale€to€Liberty€was€not€a€part€of€the€Agreement.€Ô#†¼™»XXJM}K#ÔÔ‡XJMX»¼™ÔÐ h+¸&* ЇÓ  ÓB.Ð ° ÐÌÓ[Óà  àPlaintiff€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€when€it€admitted€into€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€regarding€oral€conversations€between€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€pertaining€to€services€to€beÐ tÄ Ðperformed€by€Plaintiff€after€the€execution€of€the€Agreement.€€Plaintiff€contends€that€this€evidenceÐ `° Ðvaries€the€written€terms€of€the€Agreement€and€that€its€introduction€into€evidence€at€the€bench€trialÐ L œ Ðbelow€constitutes€a€violation€of€the€parol€evidence€rule.€€Specifically,€Plaintiff€takes€issue€with€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðadmission€of€statements€that€he€assured€Defendant€that€he€could€obtain€a€$3€million€investor€for€theÐ $ t Ðlandfill€venture.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€introduction€of€evidence€at€trial€addresses€itself€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€ò òòòStateÐ è 8  Ðv.€Ballardó óóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993).€€As€we€said€in€ò òòòOverstreet€v.€Shoneyððs,€Inc.ó óóó,€4€S.W.Ð Ô$  Ð3d€694€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999),Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[d]iscretionary€decisions€must€take€applicable€law€into€account€andÐ ˜è  Ðmust€be€consistent€with€the€facts€before€the€court.€€òòSee€ò òBallard€v.Ð „Ô  ÐHerzkeó óóó,€924€S.W.2d€652,€661€(Tenn.€1996)€(holding€that€the€trialÐ pÀ Ðcourt€must€give€due€consideration€to€the€applicable€law€and€facts).€Ð \¬ ÐThus,€the€appellate€courts€will€set€aside€a€trial€courtððs€discretionaryÐ H˜ Ðdecision€only€when€the€decision€is€based€on€a€misapplication€of€theÐ 4„ Ðcontrolling€legal€principles€or€on€a€clearly€erroneous€assessment€ofÐ  p Ðthe€evidence.Ð \` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€709€(citations€omitted).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€parol€evidence€rule€provides€that€testimony€of€prior€or€contemporaneous€oral€agreementsÐ ¼  Ðð ðis€inadmissible€to€contradict,€vary,€or€alter€a€written€contract€where€the€written€instrument€is€valid,Ð ¨ø Ðcomplete,€and€unambiguous,€absent€fraud€or€mistake€or€any€claim€or€allegation€thereof.ðð€€ò òòòAirlineÐ ”ä ÐConstr.,€Inc.€v.€Barró óóó,€807€S.W.2d€247,€259€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990)€(citations€omitted).€€Our€courtsÐ €Ð Ðhave€held,€however,€that€parol€evidence€of€an€independent€collateral€agreement€is€admissible€so€longÐ l¼ Ðas€the€collateral€agreement€does€not€vary€or€contradict€the€writing.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóThe€application€of€the€parolÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€rule€and€its€exceptions€depends€on€the€particular€facts€of€each€case.€€ò òòòEarly€v.€Streetó óóó,€192Ð D!” ÐTenn.€463,€472,€241€S.W.2d€531,€535€(1951).€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€Agreement€provides€that€Defendant€would€transfer€a€3%€interest€inÐ $X" Ðthe€Roberta€Sanitary€Landfill€venture€in€exchange€for€ð ðservices€rendered€by€[King€and€Plaintiff]€forÐ ô$D # Ðand€on€behalf€of€[Defendant]€in€association€withðð€the€landfill€project.€€The€Agreement€does€notÐ à%0!$ Ðexpound€upon€ð ðservices€rendered.ðð€€Plaintiff€argues€that€the€language€ð ðservices€renderedðð€meansÐ Ì&"% Ðservices€rendered€by€him€òòin€the€pastóó.€€In€other€words,€he€contends€that€his€performance€under€theÐ ¸'#& ÐAgreement€occurred€òòprior€toóó€the€execution€of€that€document.€€Thus,€he€argues,€it€was€improper€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpermit€Defendant€to€testify€regarding€required€performance€on€the€part€of€Plaintiff€that€was€to€occurÐ )à$( Ðòòsubsequent€Ô#†¼™»XXJMÝZ#ÔÔ‡XJMX»¼™Ôtoóó€the€execution€of€the€Agreement.€€As€we€understand€his€position,€he€received€his€3%Ð |*Ì%) Ðinterest€in€exchange€for€consideration€provided€by€him€òòbeforeóó€the€Agreement€was€executed.€€FromÐ h+¸&* Ðthis,€he€argues€that€testimony€regarding€a€commitment€on€his€part€to€secure€a€$3€million€investor€isÐ ° Ðan€attempt€to€impose€a€post„execution„of„agreement€obligation€on€him€and€that€this€varies€the€termsÐ œì Ðof€the€Agreement€and€constitutes€a€violation€of€the€parol€evidence€rule.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€recognizes€that€his€argument€tends€to€prove€too€much,€in€that€it€raises€the€specterÐ `° Ðof€the€principal€of€law€that,€generally€speaking,€past€consideration€cannot€support€a€current€promise.€Ð L œ Ðò òòòS.€M.€Williamson€&€Co.€v.€Ragsdaleó óóó,€170€Tenn.€439,€95€S.W.€2d€922,€924€(1936);€ò òòòGilman€v.€Kibleró óóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð24€Tenn.€(5€Hum.)€19€(1844).€€He€attempts€to€get€around€this€principle€by€arguing€that€DefendantððsÐ $ t Ðpromise€to€give€him€a€3%€interest€in€the€venture€is,€in€fact,€a€gift€to€him.€€He€relies€upon€the€case€ofÐ  ` Ðò òòòEstate€of€Bowlin€v.€Ablesó óóó,€766€S.W.€2d€193€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988),€and€contends€that€all€of€theÐ ü L  Ðelements€of€a€gift€are€shown€by€the€evidence.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWe€disagree€with€Plaintiff€on€both€points.€€The€evidence€preponderates€that€DefendantððsÐ À  Ðobligation€in€the€Agreement€was€supported€by€Plaintiffððs€promise€to€perform€certain€obligationsÐ ¬ü  Ðpost„agreement.€€While€there€may€be€some€ambiguity€in€the€words€ð ðservices€renderedðð€as€to€whetherÐ ˜è  Ðthis€pertains€to€òòpastóó€activity€of€Plaintiff€as€opposed€to€òòfutureóó€activity,€we€believe€this€ambiguity€wasÐ „Ô  Ðcleared€up€by€the€testimony€of€Defendant€as€to€what€led€up€to€the€execution€of€the€contract€and€theÐ pÀ Ðpartiesðð€dealings€after€the€Agreement€was€signed.€€The€challenged€testimony€merely€addresses€thatÐ \¬ Ðwhich€is€not€specifically€stated€in€the€Agreement;€it€simply€fleshes€out€the€words€ð ðservicesÐ H˜ Ðrendered.ððÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€dealings€of€parties€to€a€contract€can,€under€certain€circumstances,€be€evidence€of€whatÐ  \ Ðthe€parties€contemplated€by€their€contract.€€ò òòòFrierson€v.€Intððl€Agric.€Corp.ó óóó,€24€Tenn.€App.€616,€148Ð øH ÐS.W.€2d€27,€37€(1940).€€In€this€regard,€it€is€interesting€to€note€that€Plaintiff€attempted€to€secureÐ ä4 Ðinvestors€òòafteróó€the€Agreement€was€signed.€€In€any€event,€the€subject€testimony€does€not€run€afoul€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€parol€evidence€rule.€€That€testimony€merely€tends€to€explain€an€ambiguous€general€concept€ð!ðÐ ¼  Ðð ðservices€rendered.ðð€€òòSee€ò òAirline€Constr.,€Inc.€v.€Barró óóó,€807€S.W.€2d€at€259.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€way€that€Defendantððs€promise€to€give€Plaintiff€3%€of€the€venture€can€beÐ €Ð Ðconstrued€as€a€gift.€€The€Agreement€clearly€reflects€a€business€transaction€whereby€one€party€agreesÐ l¼ Ðto€do€something€in€exchange€for€performance€on€the€part€of€the€other€party.€€The€Agreement€and€theÐ X ¨ Ðlegal€concept€of€a€gift€are€totally€incompatible.€€Thus,€even€if€the€Agreement€were€to€be€found€to€beÐ D!” Ðsupported€wholly€by€past€consideration€ð!ð€a€position€we€reject€ð!ð€nevertheless€Plaintiff€is€not€entitledÐ 0"€  Ðto€the€recovery€he€seeks€because€Defendantððs€promise€of€a€3%€interest€was€not€intended€as€a€gift.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àEven€if€the€trial€court€erred€in€receiving€this€testimony€into€evidence,€the€error€was€harmless.€Ð ô$D # ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€This€testimony€dealt€with€the€Agreement;€the€trial€court€held€ð!ð€and€theÐ à%0!$ Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€its€holding€ð!ð€that€the€transactions€out€of€which€PlaintiffÐ Ì&"% Ðclaims€his€3%€interest€were€not€covered€by€the€Agreement.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€when€it€received€the€subject€testimony€intoÐ )à$( Ðevidence.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓC.Ð ° ÐÌÓ;{Óà  àFinally,€Plaintiff€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€award€him€damages€in€excess€ofÐ ˆØ Ð$4,500€is€against€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€disagree.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€arrived€at€the€sum€of€$4,500€by€reimbursing€Plaintiff€for€the€$2,000€he€paidÐ L œ Ðto€attorney€Doug€Overbey€in€1991€and€by€awarding€Plaintiff€$2,500,€which€represented€his€3%Ð 8 ˆ Ðinterest€in€the€Roberta€Sanitary€Landfill€project.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€$2,500€based€uponÐ $ t ÐDefendantððs€purchase€of€Kingððs€12%€interest€in€the€project€for€$10,000.€€A€payment€of€$10,000€forÐ  ` Ða€12%€interest€extrapolates€to€a€payment€of€$2,500€for€a€3%€interest.€€Plaintiff€claims€that€he€isÐ ü L  Ðentitled€to€almost€$180,000,€which€represents€3%€of€the€$6€million€Defendant€received€for€the€saleÐ è 8  Ðof€Scott€Solid€Waste€to€Liberty.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIt€is€clear€that€the€parties€had€an€agreement,€under€which€Plaintiff€was€obligated,€òòinter€aliaóó,Ð ¬ü  Ðto€assist€Defendant€in€obtaining€financing€for€the€project.€€In€exchange€for€Plaintiffððs€work,Ð ˜è  ÐDefendant€agreed€to€give€Plaintiff€a€3%€interest€in€the€business€known€as€the€òòRoberta€SanitaryÐ „Ô  ÐLandfillóó.€€There€is€no€question€that€the€parties€operated€under€the€Agreement€up€until€sometime€inÐ pÀ Ð1993.€€In€1993,€there€is€a€clear€line€of€demarcation.€€Plaintiff€ceased€doing€any€work€for€DefendantÐ \¬ Ðor€his€business€enterprise.€€Defendant€had€no€further€contact€with€Plaintiff.€€In€1995,€DefendantÐ H˜ Ðstarted€an€entirely€new€business€enterprise€known€as€Scott€Solid€Waste.€€Plaintiff€did€not€participate,Ð 4„ Ðpost„1993,€in€any€of€the€activities€that€ultimately€led€to€the€formation€of€Scott€Solid€Waste,€thatÐ  p Ðcompanyððs€subsequent€business€dealings,€and€the€ultimate€sale€of€that€business€to€Liberty.€€OurÐ  \ Ðreview€of€the€record€convinces€us€that€the€Agreement€contemplated€òòonlyòòóóóó€the€business€venture€knownÐ øH Ðas€Roberta€Sanitary€Landfill,€and€not€the€formation€of€Scott€Solid€Waste.€€As€such,€we€find€that€theÐ ä4 Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€Plaintiff€was€not€entitledÐ Ð  Ðto€3%€of€the€$6€million€Defendant€received€in€the€sale€of€Scott€Solid€Waste€to€Liberty.€€The€evidenceÐ ¼  Ðdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€Plaintiff€was€not€entitled€to€anyÐ ¨ø Ðdamages€over€and€above€the€$4,500€awarded€to€him.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ™†Óà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€enforcement€of€the€trialÐ D!” Ðcourtððs€judgment€and€for€collection€of€costs€assessed€below,€all€pursuant€to€applicable€law.€€CostsÐ 0"€  Ðon€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€R.€Scott€Martin.Ð #l! ÐÌÔ#†¼™»XXJMíi#ÔÔ€XJMX»¼™ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE