ÿWPCÉ µËÚW‡9»¥7³_d“i+Ej-ŸÂ»hnQ­PIX»´ÀP.sÿ¡ï¦äÝ?`œÖPNûǽÔ5mFöotlû®§X³´˜äv•9Ɇ:Õý>è–(¹3pÎoôŒ`d˜¶.c}ký[qÔ‚"9BÇË—Í7˜zýkL^Ÿ^ÄÄÜg|£B”Ê_æ©á¤x…žî':µÆ…Ë-‹2 iÏeW€xAÞuû£Õªü÷JO)€àîiºÅI÷]XÕ®Eْгsœ]½;s{Ñ>¥5¥þ—ýæ´_KÞ$…9)_öo£¨UF8LVæÛÕŒ¬Or«¿ú±}:Þ#*ß"$â‘qÓ-“ä猥1.¶¶–P¿©ýøHá(È[—œˆv£ þ8ËŸFw©uY†8z‰Aj‘À,Ÿ¦Ä^Yx§[¬œ”òcd#!xUN™ %ç 0Fí^ 3 w? 4C W f mh 1u 72ô 0c& ‰ 3‘ Ä BÚ U: NV V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V 0bX D5º Bï ï ï ï AQ Æ] 0b# 0D…˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular»(iñ$¡¡Ó  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔO~\'L tpO'@  3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ##37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à  )Ý ƒbqÿ"ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€»³â»»»ÔÔ€ªà»»³âÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XšIXªàÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€28,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA–Ôó ó Ñ ° Ñ 8Ñ8€ÓD»»d»»d8Ñ,O²ÀAZ‹"Arial Regular(:3qÿ$££Ý ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý\\\\)ÿÿ!dxdx dabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(:3qÿ$¢¢Ý ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ-°,X†XìDp’X°œX-ÓÑ  ÑÑ€OYÑÑ€ç‹ÑÔ_ÔJOHN€E.€MASON,à à àà 8 àà ¼ à)Ð ° Ðßx€`[B2.jzsv`  `€€@ÿEg&` 8ttxPŸ^_ È xßà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ¼ à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à 8 àà ¼ à)Ð Ô$ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ¼ à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð æ6 Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ¼ à)à  à01A01„9807„CH„00389Ð øH Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ¼ à)ÌCAPITOL€RECORDS,€INC.,à 8 àà ¼ à)à  àDavidson€ChanceryÐ  l Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà ¼ à)à  àNo.€98„865„IIÐ . ~ Ðà Ø àDefendant/Appellee.à 8 àà ¼ à)Ð @  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€CAROL€McCOY,€CHANCELLORÌÓ  ÓÌÌJAMES€A.€DELANISÌBaker,€Donelson,€Bearman€&€CaldwellÌ1700€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219ÌÌC.€BENNETT€HARRISON,€JR.ÌCornelius€&€CollinsÌ2700€Nashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€190695ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà Ø àATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌAUBREY€B.€HARWELL,€JR.ÌGERALD€D.€NEENANÌJOHN€M.€PRICEÌNeal€&€HarwellÌ2000€First€Union€TowerÌ150€Fourth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà Ø àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÓ  ÓWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ F;–63 ÐÑç‹Ñâ âÑ8€Ô<»»ddÈ8Ñâ âÑ  ÑÌÓ  ÓÔ€èñËç»»ÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÐ Â ÐóóÓ€ÓÔ€¼Ô<»çèñËÔÌÓ  ÓÓE"° ,X°4` ƒXìDp’X°,X†XìDp’XEÓà  àThis€case€involves€a€purported€sale€by€the€defendant,€Capitol€Records,Ð ã3 ÐInc.,€to€the€plaintiff,€John€E.€Mason,€of€a€building€previously€constructed€byÐ ~ Î ÐCapitol€Records€on€25€Music€Square€West€in€Nashville.€€The€chancellor€grantedÐ  i Ðsummary€judgment€to€Capitol€Records€holding€that€there€was€never€a€meeting€ofÐ ´   Ðthe€minds€between€the€parties€and€thus€no€mutually€enforceable€contract.€€MasonÐ OŸ  Ðappeals€from€this€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€For€the€following€reasons,€weÐ ê:  Ðaffirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.Ð …Õ  ÐÌÓ  ÓI.Ð »  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àCapitol€Records€initiated€construction€of€the€building€in€issue€in€thisÐ ñA Ðcase€as€headquarters€for€its€operations.€€In€November€1997€when€the€buildingÐ ŒÜ Ðwas€almost€completed€but€still€unoccupied,€a€change€in€management€occurred€atÐ 'w ÐCapitol€Records€€and€the€new€management€team€determined€to€sell€the€buildingÐ Â Ðrather€than€occupy€it.€€Capitol€Recordððs€new€president,€James€Patrick€Quigley,Ð ]­  Ðinstructed€Tom€Ô_ÔBecciÔ_Ô,€Capitolððs€vice€president€in€charge€of€finance€andÐ ø H" Ðadministration,€to€immediately€try€to€sell€the€building.Ð “"ã$ ÐÌà  àNegotiations€between€John€Mason€and€Tom€Becci€began€and€resultedÐ É%!( Ðin€a€series€of€written€and€oral€communications€which€must€be€chronologicallyÐ d'´"* Ðanalyzed€in€order€to€determine€the€following€issues:Ð ÿ(O$, Ðà  à1)€Whether€or€not€the€parties€ever€reached€an€agreement;€Ð š*ê%. Ðà  à2)€Whether€or€not€the€written€documentation€of€such€purportedÐ 5,…'0 Ðagreement€would€satisfy€the€statute€of€frauds;€andÐ Ð- )2 Ðà  à3)€Whether€or€not€Capitol€Records€is€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€to€rely€upon€the€statuteÐ k/»*4 Ðof€frauds.Ð 1V,6 ÐSince€Mason€appeals€the€grant€of€a€summary€judgment,€all€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ¡2ñ-8 Ðand€all€reasonable€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence€must€be€construedÐ <4Œ/: Ðin€the€light€most€favorable€to€Mason.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.Ð ×5'1< Ð1993).Ð r7Â2> ÐÐ  9]4@ Їà  àInitially,€we€note€that€Becci€was€an€employee€of€Capitol€Records€whichÐ ° Ðwas€a€subsidiary€corporation€of€EMI,€the€parent€corporation€headquartered€inÐ K› ÐNew€York.€€On€November€17,€1997,€Mason€made€his€first€written€proposal€toÐ æ6 ÐBecci€with€a€tentative€$6,600,000€dollar€offer€for€the€building,€contingent€uponÐ  Ñ ÐEMI€first€leasing€the€building€to€acceptable€tenants€so€as€to€produce€$820,000Ð  l Ðdollars€per€year€rentals.€€On€December€9,€1997,€Becci€advised€Mason€that€thisÐ ·   Ðproposal€was€probably€acceptable€but€he€would€have€to€obtain€approval€fromÐ R¢  ÐNew€York.€€On€that€same€day,€Quigley€informed€Mason€that€he€approved€theÐ í=  Ðproposal€and€would€present€it€to€Ken€Berry,€Chief€Operating€Officer€of€EMI.Ð ˆØ  ÐÌà  àOn€January€16,€1998,€Mason€made€a€more€detailed€written€proposal,Ð ¾ Ðcontaining€in€part€the€following€provisions:Ð Y© ÐÓ€Óà8  àà 0 àSubject€to€the€completion€and€execution€of€the€PurchaseÐ ôD ÐAgreement,€Purchaser€and€Seller€agree€as€follows:ÐV Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓQ%° ,X°4‚ÂhìDp’X° ,X°4` ƒXìDp’XQÓà8  àà Æ à1.à ˆ àòòPurchase€Priceóó.€€The€total€purchase€price€for€theÐ *z ÐProperty€shall€be€$6,600,000€(the€ð ðPurchase€Priceðð)€payableÐ <Œ Ðat€closing€in€immediately€available€U.S.€funds,€subject€toÐ Nž Ðadjustment€as€described€herein.Ð`° Ð  Ð  ÐÓ  Ó.€.€.Ð r ÐÓ  Óà8  àà Æ à3.à ˆ àòòRepresentations€and€Warrantiesóó.€The€PurchaseÐ „ Ô  ÐAgreement€shall€contain€representations€and€warranties€ofÐ –!æ! Ðthe€Seller€which€are€customary€for€a€transaction[€]€such€asÐ ¨"ø" Ðproposed€in€this€letter,€including€but€not€limited€to,Ð º# # Ðrepresentations€and€warranties€of€the€Seller€generally€to€theÐ Ì$ $ Ðeffect€that€(i)€Seller€is€vested€with€marketable€fee€simple€titleÐ Þ%.!% Ðto€the€Property,€free€and€clear€of€any€encumbrances;€(ii)€theÐ ð&@"& ÐProperty€complies€with€all€applicable€governmental€laws€andÐ (R#' Ðregulations€(including€building€codes,€zoning€andÐ )d$( Ðenvironmental€laws),€(iii)€the€Building€is€complete€inÐ &*v%) Ðaccordance€with€the€plans€and€specifications€reviewed€byÐ 8+ˆ&* ÐPurchaser€and€that€all€Building€systems€are€in€good€workingÐ J,š'+ Ðorder;€and€(iv)€the€Building€is€connected€to€and€serviced€byÐ \-¬(, Ðall€necessary€public€utilities.Ðn.¾)- Ð  Ð  ÐÓ  Ó.€.€.Ð €/Ð*. ÐÓ  Óà8  àà Æ à6.à ˆ àòòConditionsóó.€€The€Purchaserððs€obligations€toÐ ’0â+/ Ðpurchase€the€Property€shall€be€conditioned€upon€theÐ ¤1ô,0 Ðfollowing:ж2.1 Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓT%° ,X°4Œ hìDp’X° ,X°4‚ÂhìDp’XTÓà8  àà0\  Ð  Ð àà0à\ Ð \ Ð àa.à 8 àPurchaserððs€ability€to€obtain€financingÐ Ú4*03 Ðin€à08àÐ àÐ àan€amount€not€less€than€$4,950,000Ð ì5<14 Ðupon€terms€acceptable€to€Purchaser,Ð þ6N25 Ðin€his€reasonable€discretion.à ð àÐ8`368Ð 8Ð  Ðà8  àà0\  Ð  Ð àà0à\ Ð \ Ð àb.à08àÐ àÐ àPurchaserððs€satisfaction,€inÐ "9r47 ÐPurchaserððs€reasonable€discretion,Ð ° Ðwith€the€state€of€title€to€the€Property,Ð Â Ðas€reflected€by€the€Title€Policy.ÐÔ$8Ð 8Ð  Ðà8  àà0\  Ð  Ð àà0à\ Ð \ Ð àc.à08àÐ àÐ àPurchaserððs€satisfaction,€inÐ æ6 ÐÔ_ÔPurchaserððsreasonableÔ_Ô€discretion,Ð øH Ðwith€the€Survey.Ð Z8Ð 8Ð  Ðà0  àà0\  T$ T$àà8à\ T$\ T$àd.à 8 àPurchaserððs€satisfaction,€in€à0ðàÐ àÐ àPurcÐ  l ÐhaseÐ . ~ ÐrððsÐ @  ÐreasÐ R¢  ÐonabÐ d´  ÐleÐ vÆ  ÐdiscrÐ ˆØ  ÐetionÐ šê  Ð,Ð ¬ü ÐwithÐ ¾ ÐtheÐ Ð  ÐphysÐ â2 ÐicalÐ ôD ÐcondÐ V ÐitionÐ h ÐofÐ *z ÐtheÐ <Œ ÐPropÐ Nž Ðerty.Ð`°ðÐ ðÐ  Ðà0  àà0\  T$ T$àà8à\ T$\ T$àe.à 8 àPurchaserððs€satisfaction€with€the€à0@ZàÐ àÐ àÐ r Ðresults€of€an€environmental€site€assessmentÐ „ Ô Ðconducted€by€Purchaser€upon€the€Property.Ж!æàÐ àÐ  Ðà8  àà \ àà à àf.à 8 à[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€building€being€100%€leased€at€Ð ¨"ø Ðà0\  Ð  Ð àà0à\ Ð \ Ð àà08àÐ àÐ àan€average€base€rental€rate€of€$20.50Ð º#  Ðper€square€foot.ÐÌ$ 8Ð 8Ð  Ðà0  àÐ  T$ T$ ÐÓK°,X°4‚ÂDp’X° ,X°4Œ hìDp’XKÓà8  àà Æ à7.à ˆ àòòLeasingóó.€€Seller€shall€be€responsible€for€leasing€theÐ ð&@"  ÐBuilding€prior€to€the€Closing€Date.€€The€terms€and€conditionsÐ (R#! Ðof€all€such€leases€shall€be€subject€to€the€approval€ofÐ )d$" ÐPurchaser,€which€approval€shall€not€be€unreasonablyÐ &*v%# Ðwithheld€or€delayed.Ð8+ˆ&$ Ð  Ð  ÐÓ  Ó.€.€.Ð J,š'% ÐÓ  Óà8  àà Æ à9.à ˆ àòòClosingóó.€€The€closing€of€the€sale€and€purchase€ofÐ \-¬(& Ðthe€Property€(the€ð ðClosingðð)€shall€occur€within€60€daysÐ n.¾)' Ðfollowing€the€satisfaction€of€all€conditions,€but€in€[no]€eventÐ €/Ð*( Ðmore€than€180€days€from€the€date€of€the€PurchaseÐ ’0â+) ÐAgreement.Ф1ô,* Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  à€€€€€10.à ˆ àòòAssignmentóó.€€€€The€€€€Purchase€€€€Agreement€€€may€Ð È3/, Ðbe€assigned€by€Purchaser€to€an€entity€in€which€PurchaserÐ Ú4*0- Ðowns€not€less€than€25%€of€the€aggregate€equity€interests,Ð ì5<1. Ðwithout€the€consent€of€Seller.€€Upon€such€assignment,€theÐ þ6N2/ ÐAssignee€shall€become€the€ð ðPurchaserðð€and€Purchaser€shallÐ 8`30 Ðbe€released€from€all€obligations€hereunder.Ð"9r41 Ð  Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àOn€February€4,€1998,€Becci€and€Quigley€asked€Mason€what€he€wouldÐ K› Ðpay€for€the€building€without€a€leasing€contingency€to€which€Mason€respondedÐ æ6 Ðthat€he€would€pay€$6.1€million€dollars.€€The€next€day€Becci€orally€told€Mason€theÐ  Ñ Ðoffer€was€acceptable€and€to€put€it€in€writing.€€On€February€5,€1998,€Mason€issuedÐ  l Ða€revised€letter,€deleting€the€leasing€requirements€previously€contained€in€hisÐ ·   ÐJanuary€16,€1998€letter,€and€offering€what€amounted€to€a€$6.1€million€dollarÐ R¢  Ðpurchase€price.€€A€second€copy€of€the€February€5€letter€was€forwarded€by€MasonÐ í=  Ðto€Becci€on€February€13,€1998,€revised€by€Masonððs€attorney,€Kenneth€Ô_ÔEzellÔ_Ô,Ð ˆØ  Ðwhereby€the€earnest€money€required€was€increased€and€the€closing€date€was€setÐ #s Ðfor€March€24,€1998.€€On€February€17,€1998,€Becci€responded€to€Mason€by€letter:Ð ¾ ÐÓ€Óà8  àI€am€writing€to€let€you€know€that€the€financial€terms€outlinedÐ Y© Ðin€your€February€13€letter€are€acceptable€to€Capitol€Records.€Ð k» ÐHowever,€your€letter€addresses€a€number€of€other€termsÐ }Í Ðwhich,€in€our€view,€are€more€appropriately€addressed€in€aÐ ß Ðformal€contract€of€sale.€€We€expect€to€be€using€Shack€&Ð ¡ñ ÐSiegel,€P.C.,€of€New€York€City,€as€our€counsel€in€this€matter,Ð ³ Ðand€we€have€instructed€them€to€begin€work€on€a€contract€ofÐ Å Ðsale€at€once.€€As€you€know,€we€are€very€interested€inÐ ×' Ðconcluding€a€sale€of€this€property€to€you.€€However,€we€didÐ é9 Ðwant€to€be€sure€that€it€is€understood€that€there€can€be€noÐ ûK Ðbinding€agreement€between€us€unless€and€until€a€formalÐ  !]  Ðcontract€of€sale,€satisfactory€to€both€parties€and€to€ourÐ "o! Ðattorneys,€has€been€signed€and€delivered.Ð1#" Ð  Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àFollowing€this€February€17,€1998€letter,€attorney€Jeff€Stone€of€NewÐ Þ%.!% ÐYork,€representing€Capitol€Records,€forwarded€to€Ô_ÔEzellÔ_Ô€a€proposed€draft€of€theÐ y'É"' Ðcontract€deleting€ð ðrepresentations€and€warrantiesðð€therefrom€and€inserting€ð ðas€isððÐ )d$) Ðlanguage€into€the€proposed€contract.€€On€February€27,€1998,€Mason€respondedÐ ¯*ÿ%+ Ðby€e„mail€to€Ô_ÔBecciÔ_Ô€concerning€the€subject€of€this€ð ðas€isðð€language€rather€than€theÐ J,š'- Ðð ðrepresentations€and€warrantiesðð€contained€in€his€February€13€proposal€and€allÐ å-5)/ Ðof€his€previous€proposals.€€Mason€wrote€as€follows:€Ð €/Ð*1 ÐÓ€Óà8  àSubject:€The€building€contractÐ1k,3 Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àCapitolððs€N.Y.€attorney€continues€to€maintain€the€absurdÐ ?3.5 Ðposition€that€Capitol€will€not€warrant€anything€regardingÐ Q4¡/6 Ðtitle,€construction,€etc.€and€that€the€building€is€being€sold€ð ðasÐ c5³07 Ðisðð.€€This€said€to€be€ð ðthe€way€things€are€done€in€New€Yorkðð.€Ð u6Å18 ÐIt€is€most€assuredly€NOT€the€way€things€are€done€inÐ ‡7×29 ÐTennessee€or€out€here€in€the€west.€€I€am€licensed€to€practiceÐ ™8é3: Ðlaw€in€three€states€„€Calif.,€Nevada€and€TN.€€None€of€themÐ «9û4; ÐÑOYÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñhas€such€a€ridiculous€standard.€€I€need€to€either€speak€to€youÐ ° Ðimmediately€or€receive€your€assurance€that€this€can€beÐ Â Ðresolved€today.€€We€are€all€being€held€up€by€this€issue€andÐ Ô$ Ðyour€attorneyððs€intransigence.€€Regards,€John€Mason.Ðæ6 Ð  Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àOn€March€10,€1998,€Ô_ÔEzellÔ_Ô€attempted€to€contact€Stone€in€furtherance€ofÐ “ ã Ðthe€contract€but€was€unable€to€reach€him.€€On€March€11,€1998,€Stone€informedÐ . ~ ÐÔ_ÔEzellÔ_Ô€that€defendant€had€received€a€higher€offer€for€the€building€from€a€thirdÐ É   Ðparty€and€defendant€thereafter€sold€the€building€to€this€third€party.Ð d´  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓII.Ð 5… ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€first€issue€presented€for€review€by€the€appellant€involves€theÐ k» Ðquestion€of€whether€Mason€and€Capitol€agreed€on€the€essential€terms€of€the€saleÐ V Ðof€the€Capitol€Building€so€as€to€form€an€enforceable€agreement€when€they€agreedÐ ¡ñ Ðon€the€price,€the€earnest€money,€the€closing€date,€and€other€provisions.€€In€rulingÐ <Œ Ðon€the€motion€for€a€summary€judgment,€the€chancellor€made€the€followingÐ ×' Ðstatement:Ð r  ÐÓ€Óà8  àà Æ àTaking€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ  !]" ÐPlaintiff,€were€I€to€assume€that€the€February€17,€1998€letterÐ "o# Ðwas€a€commitment€sufficient€to€form€a€binding€contract,€IÐ 1#$ Ðwould€then€have€the€question€of€whether€it€was€enforceable.ÐC$“% Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà Æ àI€canððt€find€an€enforceable€contract.€€I€have€gone€back€toÐ U%¥ & Ðmy€primer€of€what€is€the€basis€of€a€contract€and€thatððsÐ g&·!' Ðadequate€consideration,€mutual€assent€to€the€terms€of€theÐ y'É"( Ðagreement,€and€that€it€was€significantly€definite€to€beÐ ‹(Û#) Ðenforceable.Ð)í$* Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà Æ àI€have€read€as€much€as€I€can€possibly€read.€€I€haveÐ ¯*ÿ%+ Ðreflected€on€my€obligation,€not€to€decide€a€Motion€forÐ Á+', ÐSummary€Judgment€if€I€have€any€ð!ð€let€me€find€what€the€termÐ Ó,#(- Ðis€ð!ð€if€I€have€any€concern€that€there€are€facts€in€dispute€thatÐ å-5). Ðwould€be€material€on€this€issue,€and€I€canððt€find€it.Ð÷.G*/ Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà Æ àI€said€that€at€the€temporary€injunction,€Iððm€saying€itÐ  0Y+0 Ðagain.€€I€donððt€find€an€enforceable€contract.€€And€thatððs€inÐ 1k,1 Ðviewing€all€the€facts€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€Mr.Ð -2}-2 ÐMason.€€Ð?3.3 Ð  Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àIn€going€back€to€her€ð ðprimer,ðð€the€chancellor€might€well€have€acceptedÐ ì5<16 Ðthis€courtððs€analysis€in€òòTullahoma€Concrete€Pipe€Co.€v.€T.€E.€GillespieÐ ‡7×28 ÐConstruction€Co.óó,€56€Tenn.€App.€208,€405€S.W.2d€657,€665€(1966),€wherein€theÐ "9r4: Ðcourt€outlined€a€basic€principle€of€acceptance:Ð ° ÐÓ€Óà8  àà Æ àIn€òòRay€v.€Thomasóó,€191€Tenn.€195,€232€S.W.2d€32,€ourÐ K› ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€acceptance€of€an€offer€must€exactlyÐ ]­ Ðand€precisely€accord€with€the€terms€of€the€offer.Ðo¿ Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àà Æ àIn€the€early€case€of€òòCanton€Cotton€Mills€v.€BowmanÐ “ ã ÐOverall€Co.óó,€149€Tenn.€18,€257€S.W.398,€our€Supreme€CourtÐ ¥ õ Ðquoted€from€Corpus€Juris€and€Ruling€Case€Law€as€follows:з  Ð  Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8Æ  Ð  Ð àThe€controlling€rule€of€law€is€elementary,€but€it€isÐ Û+  Ðwell€stated€in€13€Corpus€Juris,€281,€as€follows:Ðí= Æ Æ  ÐÌà8  àà8Æ  Ð  Ð àð ðAn€acceptance,€to€be€effectual,€must€be€identicalÐ a  Ðwith€the€offer€and€unconditional.€€Where€a€personÐ #s Ðoffers€to€do€a€definite€thing,€and€another€acceptsÐ 5… Ðconditionally€or€introduces€a€new€term€into€theÐ G— Ðacceptance,€his€answer€is€either€a€mere€expressionÐ Y© Ðof€willingness€to€treat,€or€it€is€a€counter€proposal,Ð k» Ðand€in€neither€case€is€there€an€agreement.ðð€€AgainÐ }Í Ðin€6€R.C.L.,€608,€it€is€said:€ð ðIn€order€that€there€mayÐ ß Ðbe€a€meeting€of€the€minds€which€is€essential€to€theÐ ¡ñ Ðformation€of€a€contract,€the€acceptance€of€the€offerÐ ³ Ðmust€be€substantially€as€made.€€There€must€be€noÐ Å Ðvariance€between€the€acceptance€and€the€offer.€Ð ×' ÐAccordingly€a€proposal€to€accept,€or€an€acceptance,Ð é9 Ðupon€terms€varying€from€those€offered,€is€aÐ ûK Ðrejection€of€the€offer,€and€puts€an€end€to€theÐ  !] Ðnegotiation€unless€the€party€who€made€the€originalÐ "o Ðoffer€renews€it,€or€assents€to€the€modificationÐ 1# Ðsuggested.ððÐC$“Æ Æ  ÐÌà8  àà8Æ  Ð  Ð àAnd€to€the€same€effect€is€1€Williston€on€Contracts,Ð g&·!  Ðp.€57.€€These€text„book€statements€of€the€rule€areÐ y'É"! Ðwell€supported€by€the€authorities€cited,€and,Ð ‹(Û#" Ðapplying€this€rule€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€it€mustÐ )í$# Ðbe€held€that€the€contracts€sued€on€were€not€finallyÐ ¯*ÿ%$ Ðconsummated.ÐÁ+'%Æ Æ  ÐÌà8  àòòCanton€Cotton€Mills€v.€Overall€Co.óó,€supra,€page€31,€257€S.W.Ð å-5)' Ðpage€402.Ð÷.G*( Ð  Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àFrom€the€first€offer€to€purchase€on€January€16,€1998€through€the€lastÐ ¤1ô,+ Ðrevision€of€the€February€5,€1998€offer€submitted€on€February€13,€1998,€MasonÐ ?3.- Ðnever€deviated€from€his€insistence€that€the€purchase€agreement€must€contain€theÐ Ú4*0/ Ðð ðrepresentations€and€warrantiesðð€set€forth€in€paragraph€3€of€the€January€16,€1998Ð u6Å11 Ðletter,€and€conditions€òòaóó€through€òòfóó€of€paragraph€6€of€that€letter.€€This€is€true€evenÐ 8`33 Ðthough€the€final€February€5„13€proposal€contained€a€conditional€waiver€of€theseÐ «9û45 Ðð ðconditionsðð€unless€written€notice€was€given€by€purchaser€to€seller€ofÐ ° Ðdissatisfaction€within€thirty€days€following€the€date€of€the€purchase€agreement.Ð K› ÐÌà  àThe€February€17€letter€from€Becci€to€Mason€made€clear€that€only€theÐ  Ñ Ðfinancial€terms€of€the€February€13€letter€were€acceptable€and€that€all€ð ðotherÐ  l Ðtermsðð€would€be€addressed€in€the€formal€contract€of€sale.€€This€letter€likewiseÐ ·   Ðincluded€the€following€statement€of€intention:€€ð ð[Ô_ÔW]eÔ_Ô€did€want€to€be€sure€that€itÐ R¢  Ðis€understood€that€there€can€be€no€binding€agreement€between€us€unless€and€untilÐ í=  Ða€formal€contract€of€sale,€satisfactory€to€both€parties€and€to€our€attorneys,€hasÐ ˆØ  Ðbeen€signed€and€delivered.ðð€€The€next€communication€was€the€Stone€draft€of€aÐ #s Ðproposed€contract€changing€the€provisions€of€the€Mason€offer€so€as€to€delete€theÐ ¾ Ðð ðrepresentations€and€warrantiesðð€provisions€of€the€offer€and€insert€in€lieu€thereofÐ Y© Ðthe€ð ðas€isðð€provisions€so€strenuously€objected€to€by€Mason€in€his€February€27,Ð ôD Ð1998€e„mail€to€Capitol€Records.Ð ß ÐÌà  àAt€this€final€stage€of€communication€between€the€parties,€there€wasÐ Å Ðsimply€no€mutual€assent€of€the€parties€or€mutuality€of€obligation.€€Mason€couldÐ `°  Ðnot€have€forced€Capitol€Records€to€convey€the€property€with€the€ð ðrepresentationsÐ ûK" Ðand€warrantiesðð€of€his€offer€and€Capitol€could€not€have€forced€Mason€to€acceptÐ –!æ$ Ðconveyance€of€the€property€ð ðas€is.ðð€€Under€these€circumstances,€MasonððsÐ 1#& Ðproposal€constitutes€an€offer€and€the€Stone€proposal€for€Capitol€represents€aÐ Ì$ ( Ðcounter€offer.€€Either€the€offer€or€the€counter€offer€or€both€could€have€beenÐ g&·!* Ðwithdrawn€at€any€time€prior€to€acceptance.€€òòóóThis€court€has€held€as€follows:Ð (R#, ÐÓ€Óà8  àBefore€the€agreement€was€binding€upon€the€complainant€itÐ )í$. Ðwould€have€required€his€assent,€which€would€amount€to€anÐ ¯*ÿ%/ Ðacceptance€of€an€offer€to€purchase,€and,€if€defendant€throughÐ Á+'0 Ðhis€authorized€agent€withdrew€the€offer,€for€any€reason,Ð Ó,#(1 Ðbefore€it€was€accepted€by€the€complainant,€it€was€not€aÐ å-5)2 Ðbinding€agreement€upon€either€party,€and€non„enforcible.Ð÷.G*3 Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà Æ à6€R.€C.€L.,€604,€states€the€rule:€ð ðSo€long€as€the€offer€hasÐ  0Y+4 Ðbeen€neither€accepted€nor€rejected,€the€negotiations€remainÐ 1k,5 Ðopen€and€impose€no€obligation€on€either€party.€€The€one€mayÐ -2}-6 Ðdecline€to€accept€or€the€other€may€withdraw€his€offer;€asÐ ?3.7 Ðeither€rejection€or€withdrawal€leaves€the€matter€as€if€no€offerÐ Q4¡/8 Ðhad€ever€been€made.ððÐc5³09 Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓòòCoate€v.€Tigrettóó,€4€Tenn.€App.€48,€53€(1926).Ð ‡7×2; ÐÐ "9r4= Ðà  àIt€was€Mason€in€his€February€13€offer€who€proposed€theÐ ° Ðð ðrepresentations€and€warrantiesðð€provisions.€€Ô_ÔBecciÔ_Ôððs€letter€of€February€17Ð K› Ðaccepted€only€the€financial€terms€of€the€Mason€offer.€€One€simply€cannotÐ æ6 Ðconstrue€the€February€17,€1998€letter€as€an€unconditional€acceptance€by€CapitolÐ  Ñ Ðof€the€Mason€offer.€€When€the€counter„proposal€by€Stone€in€behalf€of€CapitolÐ  l Ðsubstituted€the€ð ðas€isðð€language€in€contrast€to€the€ð ðrepresentations€andÐ ·   Ðwarrantiesðð€language€of€the€Mason€February€13,€1998€offer,€€Mason€did€notÐ R¢  Ðaccept€this€counter„proposal€but€vigorously€protested€it.€€Stone€was€attorney€forÐ í=  ÐCapitol€Records€and€Ô_ÔEzellÔ_Ô€was€attorney€for€Mason.€€The€obvious€stalemateÐ ˆØ  Ðbetween€the€parties€is€best€stated€by€Ô_ÔEzellÔ_Ô€in€his€deposition:€€ð ðQ.€€You€two€justÐ #s Ðwere€at€an€impasse€until€you€worked€out€those€basic€issues?€€A.€€I€think€thatððsÐ ¾ Ðright.ððà  à€Ð Y© ÐÌà  àWithout€ever€resolving€this€impasse,€Capitol€Records€withdrew€fromÐ ß Ðthe€negotiations€with€Mason€and€sold€the€property€to€a€third€party.€€TheÐ *z Ðchancellor€was€€correct€in€holding€that€she€did€not€ð ðfind€an€enforceable€contract.€Ð Å ÐAnd€thatððs€in€viewing€all€the€facts€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€Mr.€Mason.ððÐ `°  ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð –!æ$ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àWhile€this€holding€that€no€contract€existed€between€the€parties€isÐ Ì$ ( Ðdispositive€of€the€case,€if€we€are€in€error€in€this€holding€and€there€are€factualÐ g&·!* Ðissues€sufficient€to€survive€summary€judgment€we€must€next€address€the€statuteÐ (R#, Ðof€frauds€relied€upon€by€Capitol€Records.€€Plaintiff€asserts€that€the€combinationÐ )í$. Ðof€letters€and€documents€in€the€record€is€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€statute€of€frauds.€Ð 8+ˆ&0 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„101(a)(4).€€The€statute€of€frauds€provides€in€pertinentÐ Ó,#(2 Ðpart€that€no€action€shall€be€brought€upon€any€contract€for€the€sale€of€landsÐ n.¾)4 Ðð ðunless€the€promise€or€agreement,€upon€which€such€action€shall€be€brought,€orÐ  0Y+6 Ðsome€memorandum€or€note€thereof,€shall€be€in€writing,€and€signed€by€the€partyÐ ¤1ô,8 Ðto€be€charged€therewith,€or€some€other€person€lawfully€authorized€by€suchÐ ?3.: Ðparty.ðð€€òòPatterson€v.€Davisóó,€28€Tenn.€App.€571,€192€S.W.2d€227,€229€(1945).€Ð Ú4*0< ÐThe€ð ðparty€to€be€chargedðð€is€the€landowner,€in€this€case€Capitol€Records.€òòóó€òòId.óóÐ u6Å1> ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case€we€are€dealing€not€with€a€written,€signed€andÐ «9û4B Ðconditioned€offer€to€sell€by€the€vendor,€but€a€written€offer€to€purchase€by€theÐ ° Ðvendee€on€specific€terms€and€conditions€set€by€the€prospective€purchaser.€€WeÐ K› Ðhave€no€signed€memoranda€of€the€vendor€accepting€the€terms€and€conditionsÐ æ6 Ðupon€which€the€prospective€vendee€proposed€to€buy€the€property.€€The€onlyÐ  Ñ Ðdocument€ð ðsigned€by€the€party€to€be€chargedðð€in€this€case€was€the€Becci€letter€ofÐ  l ÐFebruary€17,€1998.€€This€document€either€standing€alone€or€in€combination€withÐ ·   Ðany€documents€referred€to€therein€satisfies€the€statute€of€frauds€only€to€the€extentÐ R¢  Ðof€the€financial€terms€of€the€contract.€€This€is€insufficient€in€law.€€Ð í=  ÐÌà  àJustice€Humphreys,€speaking€for€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€madeÐ #s Ðthe€following€observation:Ð ¾ ÐÓ€Óà8  àThe€rule€by€which€the€thirteen€instruments€exhibited€to€theÐ Y© Ðbill€as€memoranda€satisfying€the€Statute€of€Frauds€must€beÐ k» Ðtested€is€well€stated€thusly:€ð ðThe€general€rule€is€that€theÐ }Í Ðmemorandum,€in€order€to€satisfy€the€statute,€must€contain€theÐ ß Ðessential€terms€of€the€contract,€expressed€with€such€certaintyÐ ¡ñ Ðthat€they€may€be€understood€from€the€memorandum€itself€orÐ ³ Ðsome€other€writing€to€which€it€refers€or€with€which€it€isÐ Å Ðconnected,€without€resorting€to€parol€evidence.€€AÐ ×' Ðmemorandum€disclosing€merely€that€a€contract€had€beenÐ é9 Ðmade,€without€showing€what€the€contract€is,€is€not€sufficientÐ ûK Ðto€satisfy€the€requirement€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds€that€thereÐ  !]  Ðbe€a€memorandum€in€writing€of€the€contract.ðð€Ð"o! Ð  Ð  ÐÌòòÓ€ÓLambert€v.€Home€Fed.€Ô_ÔSavÔ_Ô.€&€Loan€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ôóó,€481€S.W.2d€770,€773€(Tenn.€1972)Ð C$“# Ð(citations€omitted).€€See€alsoòò€Southern€Industrial€Banking€Corp.€v.€DeltaÐ Þ%.!% ÐPropertiesóó,€òòIncóó.€542€S.W.2d€815,€819€(Tenn.€1976),€wherein€the€Supreme€CourtÐ y'É"' Ðreiterated€the€owner„vendor€application€of€the€party€to€be€charged€rule€in€realÐ )d$) Ðproperty€cases€and€observed€that€the€purpose€of€the€statute€of€frauds€is€ð ðto€avoidÐ ¯*ÿ%+ Ðthe€inevitable€duel€of€different€versions€of€the€spoken€word,€unsettling€andÐ J,š'- Ðlegally€intolerable€where€real€property€is€involved.ðð€€The€holding€of€theÐ å-5)/ Ðchancellor€that€the€memoranda€in€evidence€is€insufficient€in€law€to€satisfy€theÐ €/Ð*1 Ðstatute€of€frauds€is€affirmed.à  àÐ 1k,3 ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð Q4¡/7 ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àAppellant€next€asserts€that€Capitol€Records€is€equitably€estopped€fromÐ ‡7×2; Ðasserting€the€statute€of€frauds€as€a€defense.€€Mason€asserts€that,€in€reliance€uponÐ "9r4= Ðthe€oral€representations€of€Capitol,€he€expended€time,€effort€and€money€inÐ ° Ðseeking€out€and€negotiating€with€potential€tenants€for€the€building,€and€thatÐ K› ÐCapitol€Records€held€him€out€to€the€public€as€the€new€owner€of€the€building.€Ð æ6 ÐThe€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€has€held€as€follows:Ð  Ñ ÐÓ€Óà8  àà Æ àThe€appellate€courts€of€this€state€consistently€haveÐ  l Ðrefused€to€enforce€an€oral€contract€for€the€sale€of€land€on€theÐ . ~  Ðbasis€of€part€performance€alone.€€òòóóAnd,€it€is€now€a€rule€ofÐ @   Ðproperty€in€this€state€that€part€performance€of€a€parol€contractÐ R¢  Ðfor€the€sale€of€land€will€not€take€the€agreement€out€of€theÐ d´  Ðstatute€of€frauds.€€òòóó€The€harshness€of€this€rule€has€beenÐ vÆ  Ðmitigated€by€the€application€of€the€doctrine€of€equitableÐ ˆØ  Ðestoppel€in€exceptional€cases€where€to€enforce€the€statute€ofÐ šê  Ðfrauds€would€make€it€an€instrument€of€hardship€andÐ ¬ü Ðoppression,€verging€on€actual€fraud.€òòóóо Ð  Ð  Ðà8  àà8Æ  Ð  Ð àð ðEquitable€estoppel,€in€the€modern€sense,€arisesÐ Ð  Ðfrom€the€ððconductðð€of€the€party,€using€that€word€inÐ â2 Ðits€broadest€meaning,€as€including€his€spoken€orÐ ôD Ðwritten€words,€his€positive€acts,€and€his€silence€orÐ V Ðnegative€omission€to€do€any€thing.€€Its€foundationÐ h Ðis€justice€and€good€conscience.€€Its€object€is€toÐ *z Ðprevent€the€unconscientious€and€inequitableÐ <Œ Ðassertion€or€enforcement€of€claims€or€rights€whichÐ Nž Ðmight€have€existed,€or€been€enforceable€by€otherÐ `° Ðrules€of€law,€unless€prevented€by€an€estoppel;€andÐ r Ðits€practical€effect€is,€from€motives€of€equity€andÐ „ Ô Ðfair€dealing,€to€create€and€vest€opposing€rights€inÐ –!æ Ðthe€party€who€obtains€the€benefit€of€the€estoppel.ðð€Ð ¨"ø ÐòòÐ Æ Æ  ÐóóÌÓ€ÓòòÔ_ÔBalilesÔ_Ô€v.€Cities€Serv.€Co.óó,€578€S.W.2d€621,€624€(Tenn.€1979)€(citations€omitted).Ð Þ%.!! ÐÌà  àThe€difficulty€with€the€position€of€Mason€in€this€respect€is€that€he€knewÐ )d$% Ðfrom€the€beginning€that€Capitol€Records€would€not€sell€the€building€to€him€withÐ ¯*ÿ%' Ðany€obligation€upon€Capitol€to€lease€the€building.€€He€therefore€dropped€thisÐ J,š') Ðprovision€from€his€January€16,€1998€original€proposal€and€accepted€theÐ å-5)+ Ðresponsibility€for€leasing€the€building€himself.€€These€expenditures€of€time,€effortÐ €/Ð*- Ðand€money€were€made€at€a€time€when€Mason€knew€that€he€had€no€bindingÐ 1k,/ Ðagreement€with€Capitol,€and€that€even€under€his€proposal€Capitol€had€noÐ ¶2.1 Ðobligation€to€secure€tenants€for€the€building.€€He€cannot€be€faulted€for€his€actionsÐ Q4¡/3 Ðin€seeking€prospective€tenants€because€if€the€parties€agreed€on€a€sale,€heÐ ì5<15 Ðobviously€would€not€want€part€or€all€of€the€building€to€be€vacant€after€hisÐ ‡7×27 Ðpurchase.€€Such€does€not€implicate€Capitol€in€any€inequitable€conduct.Ð "9r49 Їà  àThe€conduct€of€Capitol€simply€does€not€rise€to€a€level€ð ðverging€onÐ ° Ðactual€fraudðð€as€in€òòBaliles€v.€Cities€Service€óóor€as€in€òòÔ_ÔGRWÔ_Ô€Enterprises,€Inc.€v.Ð K› ÐDavisóó,€797€S.W.2d€606€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€The€case€is€more€akin€to€òòGorbicsóó€òòv.Ð æ6 ÐCloseóó,€722€S.W.2d€672€(Tenn.€App.€1986),€wherein€the€court€declined€to€hold€anÐ  Ñ Ðestoppel€to€rely€upon€the€statute€of€frauds.€€In€òòGorbicsóó,€without€an€adequateÐ  l Ðwriting,€the€plaintiff€Ô_ÔGorbicsÔ_Ô€moved€his€trailer€home€upon€an€acre€of€land€andÐ ·   Ðinstalled€a€fence€and€sewage€system€in€reliance€on€an€alleged€agreement.€€ThisÐ R¢  Ðcourt€held€that€in€the€absence€of€proof€that€Gorbics€could€not€move€the€trailerÐ í=  Ðfrom€the€property€or€that€the€trailer€somehow€benefitted€Close,€there€was€no€basisÐ ˆØ  Ðfor€an€estoppel.€€Like€the€òòÔ_ÔGorbicsÔ_Ô€óócourt,€we€conclude€that€the€compellingÐ #s Ðcircumstances€necessary€to€effect€equitable€estoppel€are€simply€not€present€inÐ ¾ Ðthis€case.€Ð Y© ÐÌÓ  ÓV.Ð ß ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àFinally,€Mason€asserts€in€his€brief€that€ð ðCapitolððs€motion€onlyÐ Å Ðaddressed€Mr.€Masonððs€contract€claim.€€The€trial€court,€nonetheless,€grantedÐ `°  Ðsummary€judgment€on€issues€never€briefed€or€argued,€including€fraud€and€theÐ ûK" ÐConsumer€Protection€Act.€€This€was€error.ðð€€The€opening€paragraph€ofÐ –!æ$ Ðdefendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€filed€April€3,€1998,€asserts€thatÐ 1#& Ðð ðDefendant€respectfully€moves,€pursuant€to€Rule€56€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ Ì$ ( ÐCivil€Procedure,€that€this€court€enter€a€summary€judgment€dismissing€all€ofÐ g&·!* Ðplaintiffððs€claims€and€causes€of€action€against€defendant€herein,€with€prejudice,Ð (R#, Ðon€the€grounds€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€and€that€defendantÐ )í$. Ðis€entitled€to€summary€judgment€of€dismissal€as€a€matter€of€law.ððÐ 8+ˆ&0 ÐThereafter€and€alternatively,€the€defendant€asserted€a€motion€for€partial€summaryÐ Ó,#(2 Ðjudgment€dismissing€all€of€plaintiffððs€claims€for€equitable€relief.€€DefendantÐ n.¾)4 Ðfurther€requested€that€this€alternative€summary€judgment€be€entered€as€a€finalÐ  0Y+6 Ðjudgment€pursuant€to€Rule€54.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.Ð ¤1ô,8 ÐÌà  àIn€its€final€order€entered€June€5,€1998€the€trial€court€made€the€followingÐ Ú4*0< Ðfinding:Ð u6Å1> ÐÓ€Óà8  àI.à Æ àDefendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€granted€inÐ 8`3@ Ðits€entirety.€€All€of€plaintiffððs€claims€and€causes€of€actionÐ "9r4A Ðherein€against€defendant€are€hereby€dismissed€with€prejudiceÐ ° Ðpursuant€to€Rule€56€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ Â ÐProcedure.ÐÔ$ Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓFollowing€this€finding€in€the€order,€for€some€reason€not€apparent€from€the€record,Ð øH Ðthe€chancellor€expressly€determined€no€just€reason€for€delay€and€entry€of€finalÐ “ ã Ðjudgment,€pursuant€to€Rule€54.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.Ð . ~ ÐÌà  àSo€it€is€that€we€have€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€as€to€all€issuesÐ d´  Ðfollowed€by€an€alternative€motion€for€summary€judgment€as€to€all€equitableÐ ÿO  Ðclaims.€€We€have€a€final€order€sustaining€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€inÐ šê  Ðits€entirety€on€all€issues€followed€by€a€Rule€54.02€provision,€consistent€with€theÐ 5… Ðgrant€of€summary€judgment€as€to€less€than€all€issues,€but€unnecessary€to€a€grantÐ Ð  Ðof€summary€judgment€as€to€all€issues.€€A€grant€of€summary€judgment€under€RuleÐ k» Ð56€as€to€all€issues€is€a€final€judgment.€€òòAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€Hartford€Accident€&Ð V ÐIndemnity€Co.óó,€483€S.W.2d€719€(Tenn.€1972).€Such€a€judgment€is€appealable€asÐ ¡ñ Ða€matter€of€right.€€When€summary€judgment€is€granted€on€less€than€all€issuesÐ <Œ Ðbetween€a€party€plaintiff€and€a€party€defendant,€it€becomes€a€final€judgment€asÐ ×' Ðto€such€summary€disposition€of€issues€upon€the€direction€of€the€trial€court,€basedÐ r  Ðupon€an€expressed€determination€that€there€is€no€just€reason€for€delay€in€anÐ  !]" Ðappeal.€Ð ¨"ø$ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€it€appears€that€neither€party€argued€before€the€trial€judgeÐ Þ%.!( Ðthe€issues€of€fraud€and€the€application€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€TheÐ y'É"* Ðabove€quotation€from€the€brief€of€the€appellant€is€the€only€statement€made€beforeÐ )d$, Ðthis€court€relative€to€these€issues.€€Since€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€byÐ ¯*ÿ%. ÐCapitol€Records€did€in€fact€address€all€of€the€issues€of€the€case€and€was,€in€fact,Ð J,š'0 Ðgranted€by€the€trial€court€on€all€issues€and€appellant€cites€no€authority€in€supportÐ å-5)2 Ðof€its€position,€such€issues€are€waived€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Dickersonóó,€885€S.W.2dÐ €/Ð*4 Ð90€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1993);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7).€€Regardless€of€waiver,Ð 1k,6 Ðit€is€difficult€to€see€how€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€could€apply€inÐ ¶2.8 Ðthis€case,€òòsee€Ô_ÔGanzevoortÔ_Ô€v.€Russellóó,€949€S.W.2d€293€(Tenn.€1997),€and€it€isÐ Q4¡/: Ðequally€difficult€to€see€how€plaintiff€could€prevail€on€a€fraud€claim€in€view€of€ourÐ ì5<1< Ðfinding€on€the€equitable€estoppel€assertion.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,Ð ‡7×2> ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€Rule€36€will€be€applied€to€the€end€thatÐ "9r4@ Ðthese€issues€will€be€determined€because€they€are€first€of€all€included€in€theÐ ° Ðgeneral€motion€for€summary€judgment,€and€secondly,€no€purpose€would€beÐ K› Ðserved€in€remanding€this€case€on€issues€effectively€determined€by€our€actionÐ æ6 Ðherein.Ð  Ñ ÐÌÓ  ÓVI.Ð ·   ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€granting€to€the€defendant€CapitolÐ í=  ÐRecords€summary€judgment€on€all€issues€is€in€all€respects€affirmed.€€The€partiesÐ ˆØ  Ðnever€agreed€on€the€essential€terms€of€the€sale€of€the€Capitol€Building€and€thusÐ #s Ðnever€formed€an€enforceable€contract.€€Even€if€they€had,€the€combination€ofÐ ¾ Ðletters€and€documents€in€the€record€would€be€insufficient€to€satisfy€the€statute€ofÐ Y© Ðfrauds€and,€furthermore,€Capitol€Records€did€not€engage€in€conduct€which€wouldÐ ôD Ðequitably€Ô_ÔestoppÔ_Ô€it€from€relying€on€the€statute.€€Finally,€we€find€that€all€ofÐ ß ÐMasonððs€issues€were€properly€disposed€of€by€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summaryÐ *z Ðjudgment.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€the€plaintiff/€appellant,€John€Mason.Ð Å ÐÌÌÓB°,X°4‚ÂÀp’X°,X°4‚ÂDp’XBÓÓ€Óà  àà Æ àà ˆ àà  à__________________________________Ð –!æ$ Ðà  àà Æ àà ˆ àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ ¨"ø% ÐÌÌCONCUR:Ð Þ%.!( ÐÌÌ____________________________________Ð )d$+ ÐWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ &*v%, ÐÌÌ____________________________________Ð \-¬(/ ÐPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE