ÿWPCÍ ùdgô¯z±*ZQ,™È¡þ+jÕ0†„ö}Z9ºf\–p áá׭ÂÙS]•ru£Oº…sê½ÐD—­)išaV?/ò§ð\`UúÒê”ìµ–ÎÞ)}f!´’Z¹¤çÎÑÛd¼Ç~Ó6)"Éïµ².o˜U)ž¯ÊIvK·õq× þ[bÒê.\æ¦Ì6µfƒÜ ›—¸Ë “÷ä)ù¾9aÞËø:ÿºU!~áNõRÊÅÂØÂJ‡]+X k* G3By,ÐÇN–<àë=X™À|ª…ª¿mx70õA"næ÷wÖo½²Õq¦©õÔe×ig;¬¬ƒlÐz²3#9Ö>_MÊÑ k«¢JÚúG™¥Œóüè|¦ GìçHÙ8Wî°ÈPZñ?.ºõÄnd+?”=GîÙ¸VOï ˆ\Â%hûMGöÓ3A «u¿!®Ày¥fiªÉWpà H´¬,S48Š·~~v™™X:°Àv-7D7²ÀI·k/äs‘c­'J<ñ¾üoîZÏ£¦ÍH»,j Ź9@¹ª9–Edÿ×!Ÿ.]z´ˆ„Ó²Ñ&™•Éú§ÝŒÿmŠZæXÂPUJ¼ÙOx¯ñŒÐ%Ûæœ^#Á %Ï Õ 0ˆÝ UNe ^ ³ w¿ zà Ò= 4 # 2 m4 ÆK ÆÆ×ÆNcccEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeebgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg 0ëoooo BZZ 0¤w D3 D-N 0K{{ A\ÆÆ" 0¤è 0DŒ A«ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ D5{ B°˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular·}.)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptŠ~&)ê:i¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2Ê™$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûµò»»Ô d(|3‡‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`Nþÿ<<Cÿÿ xdðƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK€€€€)ûÿ!dxdxüÿP PdÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼W»»»ÔÑ8€aXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î] WÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼W»îî] #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XaX»¼WÔÌò òÔ#†¼W»XXaï#ÔLEE€OFMANòòóó€v.€DR.€JAMES€WOODFORDÔ‡XaX»¼WÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€I„99297€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€Judge€Ð æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00736„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€14,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€a€suit€by€an€attorney€for€breach€of€an€oral€contract€relative€to€the€professional€services€of€anÐ xÈ  Ðexpert€witness.€€Suit€was€instituted€by€civil€warrant€in€the€general€sessions€court.€€Following€a€defaultÐ d´ Ðjudgment€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€an€appeal€was€perfected€by€the€defendant€to€the€circuit€court€whereÐ P  Ðthe€case€was€tried€òòde€novo,óó€non„jury€and€resulted€in€a€judgment€for€the€plaintiff€in€the€amount€ofÐ <Œ Ð$2,500.00.€€The€defendant€appealed,€and€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð (x ÐÓ¢ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼W»àXaZ#ÔÔ‡XaX.¼WÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBòòENóó€H.€CòòANTRELLóó,€P.J.,€M.S.,óó€andÐ Ø( ÐòòPòòATRICIAóó€J.€CòòOTTRELLóóóó,€J.,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌPhilip€Edward€Schell,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Dr.€James€Ô_ÔWoodfordÔ_Ô.Ð œì ÐÌLee€Ô_ÔOfmanÔ_Ô,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð tÄ ÐÓ„ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼W»XXa³#ÔÔ‡XaX»¼WÔÐ L œ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼W»XXaË #ÔÔ‡XaX»¼WÔÓ  Óà  àThis€suit€originated€in€the€General€Sessions€Court€of€Williamson€County€by€civil€warrantÐ $"t! Ðwhereby€Lee€Ô_ÔOfmanÔ_Ô€(ð ðthe€plaintiffðð),€an€attorney,€sued€Dr.€Warren€James€Ô_ÔWoodfordÔ_Ô€(ð ðtheÐ #`" Ðdefendantðð),€a€forensic€chemist,€charging€breach€of€contract.€€Specifically,€the€plaintiff€alleged:Ð ü#L# ÐÌà8  à[B]reach€of€contract€in€that€Dr.€Woodford€was€employed€by€Lee€Ofman€to€testify€asÐ Ô%$!% Ðan€expert€witness€in€the€field€of€forensic€chemistry€on€behalf€of€Zane€Davis,€Jr.€€Dr.Ð À&"& ÐWoodford€would€not€meet€with€Lee€Ofman€to€prepare€for€the€case€and€did€nothingÐ ¬'ü"' Ðon€Mr.€Davisðð€behalf€to€prepare€for€the€trial.€€Mr.€Davis€paid€Dr.€WoodfordÐ ˜(è#( Ð$2,500.00€as€a€retainer.€€Mr.€Ofman€has€reimbursed€Mr.€Davis€that€amount€plus€hasÐ „)Ô$) Ðagreed€to€pay€$500.00€more€for€the€hiring€of€a€new€expert,€for€a€total€of€$3,000.00Ð p*À%* Ðin€damages.€Ð\+¬&+Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý Ðà  àThe€case€was€set€for€trial€on€May€17,€1999€in€the€general€sessions€court,€and€upon€failure€ofÐ ° Ðâ âDefendant€to€appear,€judgment€by€default€was€rendered€in€favor€of€Plaintiff€in€the€amount€ofÐ œì Ð$2,500.00.€€Defendant€filed€an€appeal€to€circuit€court€which€was€granted€on€the€25th€day€of€MayÐ ˆØ Ð1999.€€The€case€was€tried€òòde€novoóó€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Williamson€County€on€August€30,€1999,Ð tÄ Ðand€on€September€10,€1999,€the€trial€court€entered€the€following€order:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà ` àThis€matter€came€on€to€be€heard€on€the€30th€day€of€August,€1999,€before€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐHonorable€Timothy€L.€Easter,€Judge€of€the€Circuit€Court€of€Williamson€County,Ð $ t ÐTennessee,€Division€IV,€upon€an€appeal€from€the€General€Sessions€Court€ofÐ  ` ÐWilliamson€County€filed€by€the€Defendant,€James€Woodford;€upon€hearing€theÐ ü L  Ðtestimony€of€witnesses€in€open€Court,€the€parties€being€before€the€Court,€and€uponÐ è 8  Ðthe€record€as€a€whole,€from€all€of€which€it€duly€appears€to€the€Court:ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à1.à ¸ àThat€a€legal€and€binding€contract€existed€between€the€Plaintiff,€LeeÐ ¬ü  ÐOfman,€and€the€Defendant,€James€Woodford,€and€that€the€Plaintiff€Ofman€was€aÐ ˜è  Ðparty€to€this€contract€not€an€incidental€beneficiary.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à2.à ¸ àThat€the€Plaintiff€Ofman€performed€according€to€the€terms€of€theÐ \¬ Ðcontract.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à3.à ¸ àThat€the€Defendant€Woodford€did€not€perform€according€to€the€termsÐ  p Ðof€the€contract€and€committed€a€material€breach€of€the€contract.€Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à4.à ¸ àThat€as€a€result€of€the€breach€the€Plaintiff€Ofman€refunded€his€client,Ð ä4 ÐZane€Davis,€Jr.,€$2500€by€a€check€dated€January€26,€1999.€ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à5.à ¸ àThat€the€Plaintiff€Ofman€therefore€suffered€damages€in€the€amount€ofÐ ¨ø Ð$2500€occasioned€by€the€Defendantððs€breach€of€contract.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIT€IS€THEREFORE€ORDERED€by€the€Court€that€the€Plaintiff,€Lee€Ofman,Ð l¼ Ðrecover€damages€for€breach€of€contract€in€the€amount€of€$2500€and€that€theÐ X ¨ ÐDefendant,€James€Woodford,€be€required€to€pay€said€amount€together€with€the€costsÐ D!” Ðof€this€cause€for€all€of€which€execution€may€issue.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal€by€the€Defendant,€the€statement€of€the€case€in€his€brief€asserts:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà ` àThis€is€an€action€for€breach€of€contract.€€On€September€10,€1999€the€CircuitÐ à%0!$ ÐCourt€for€Williamson€County,€Tennessee€entered€an€Order€granting€the€Appellee,€LeeÐ Ì&"% ÐOfman€a€judgment€against€the€Appellant,€Dr.€James€Woodford€in€the€amount€ofÐ ¸'#& Ð$2,500.00.€€On€October€1,€1999€the€Appellant€filed€his€Notice€of€Appeal.€€In€thisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðappeal,€the€Appellant€raises€a€single€issue€concerning€whether€Lee€Ofman€was€theÐ )à$( Ðproper€party€to€file€this€action€for€breach€of€contract.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àDefendant€thereafter€states€the€single€issue€for€review€to€be,€ð ðwhether€the€circuit€court€erredÐ ° Ðin€finding€that€Lee€Ô_ÔOfmanÔ_Ô€was€a€party€to€the€contract€with€Dr.€James€Ô_ÔWoodfordÔ_Ô€and€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔOfmanÔ_ÔÐ œì Ðhad€standing€to€file€the€lawsuit€for€breach€of€the€contract.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àThus,€the€sole€question€on€appeal€is€whether€the€contract€to€provide€expert€testimony€was€aÐ `° Ðcontract€between€the€lawyer,€Lee€Ô_ÔOfmanÔ_Ô,€and€the€expert€witness,€Dr.€Ô_ÔWoodfordÔ_Ô,€or€a€contractÐ L œ Ðbetween€Mr.€Ofmanððs€client,€Zane€Davis,€Jr.,€and€Dr.€Woodford.€€The€contract€was€entirely€oral,€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€lawsuit€was€essentially€a€swearing€contest€between€Lee€Ofman€and€Dr.€James€Woodford.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€testimony€shows,€without€substantial€dispute,€that€Lee€Ofman€represented€a€number€ofÐ ü L  Ðdefendants€in€various€DUI€cases€and€that€he€first€contacted€Dr.€Woodford€as€a€potential€expertÐ è 8  Ðwitness€in€one€of€his€cases€because€of€a€recommendation€from€a€Georgia€law€firm.€€Dr.€WoodfordÐ Ô$  Ðcharged€$2,500€as€a€retainer€fee€and€$1,000€per€day€for€courtroom€time.€€Mr.€Ofman€wouldÐ À  Ðdetermine€whether€or€not€an€expert€witness€would€be€helpful€in€the€case,€and€in€his€contract€with€hisÐ ¬ü  Ðclient,€it€is€clear€that€the€client€would€pay€the€retainer€for€the€expert€witness.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àMr.€Ofman€and€Dr.€Woodford€worked€under€this€arrangement€through€several€cases€and€thenÐ pÀ Ðbecame€disenchanted€with€each€other.€€Mr.€Ofman€had€used€Dr.€Woodford€as€an€expert€witness€atÐ \¬ Ðvarious€stages€of€approximately€nine€cases,€including€cases€involving€Steve€Thomas,€SusanÐ H˜ ÐBlackborn€and€William€Nesmith,€along€with€the€case€against€his€client,€Zane€Davis,€for€a€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô,€whichÐ 4„ Ðis€underlying€the€case€at€bar.Ð  p ÐÌà  àBoth€parties€agreed€to€the€essential€facts€above,€but€at€this€point,€everything€turned€into€aÐ øH Ðcredibility€contest.€€Mr.€Ofman€testified€that€it€was€he,€and€not€the€client€Davis,€who€employed€Ô_ÔDr.Ô_ÔÐ ä4 ÐÔ_ÔWoodfordÔ_Ô€or€any€other€expert.€€Indeed,€he,€as€the€lawyer,€made€the€decisions€as€to€whether€or€notÐ Ð  Ðan€expert€was€needed€and€whether€or€not€to€use€the€testimony€of€the€expert€in€the€actual€trial.€€OfmanÐ ¼  Ðtestified€that€Davis€knew€nothing€about€Woodford€and€that,€as€had€been€the€custom€in€other€cases,Ð ¨ø Ðonce€Ofman€determined€that€an€expert€was€needed,€he€would€contact€such€expert€and€makeÐ ”ä Ðarrangements€for€the€expert€to€meet€the€client.€€Ofman€would€make€sure€that€the€client€paid€theÐ €Ð Ðexpertððs€retainer€fee.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àDr.€Woodford,€on€the€other€hand,€testified€that,€although€it€was€true€that€the€lawyer€made€theÐ D!” Ðinitial€contact€with€him,€he€considered€his€contract€to€be€with€the€client€who€was€paying€the€retainer.€Ð 0"€  ÐWoodford€testified€that€he€told€Ofman,€and€each€of€his€clients,€that€the€$2,500€retainer€fee€was€non„Ð #l! Ðrefundable.€€Ofman,€Zane€Davis,€Jr.€and€another€client,€Steve€Thomas,€testified€that€Dr.€WoodfordÐ $X" Ðnever€said€that€his€retainer€fee€was€non„refundable.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€reasons€for€the€ð ðfalling€outðð€between€Mr.€Ofman€and€Dr.€Woodford€are€hotly€contestedÐ Ì&"% Ðand€present€credibility€questions,€the€determination€of€which€are€unnecessary€in€view€of€the€limitedÐ ¸'#& Ðissue€on€appeal.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€contested€on€appeal€only€regarding€the€standingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€Mr.€Ô_ÔOfmanÔ_Ô,€which€is€determined€by€whether€or€not€he€was€a€party€to€the€contract.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAfter€the€conclusion€of€all€of€the€testimony€and€the€arguments€of€counsel,€the€trial€court€madeÐ ° Ðâ âa€credibility€call:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà ` à[Dr.€Ô_ÔWoodfordÔ_Ô]€said€ð ðI€am€a€chemist€and€Iððve€never€really€understood€theÐ tÄ Ðlegal€system,ðð€and€I€think€thatððs€now€being€manifested;€not€because€of€something€thatÐ `° Ðhe€has€done€to€lose€a€criminal€case,€but€something€that€heððs€done€that€is€a€negativeÐ L œ Ðto€him€in€a€civil€case,€a€case€of€breach€of€contract.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAgain,€too,€it€supports€my€idea€or€my€views€in€this€courtroom,€in€a€civilÐ  ` Ðcourtroom,€on€breach€of€contract€cases€that€I€hear€that€there€needs€to€be€a€writing.€Ð ü L  ÐThere€needs€to€be€a€writing€in€every€case.€€Regardless€of€how€simplistic€it€seems,€thisÐ è 8  Ðcase€ultimately€figures,€there€needs€to€be€a€writing.€€In€the€future,€I€would€suggest€thatÐ Ô$  Ðcertainly€to€both€parties€that€it€all€needs€to€be€put€in€writing.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àHaving€said€that,€there€is€some€truth,€too,€to€what€General€Baugh€arguedÐ ˜è  Ðabout€there€being€a€discrepancy€here€in€this€case.€€Thereððs€a€lot€of€truth€to€this,€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthereððs€a€lot€of€differences€in€testimony€between€what€Mr.€Ofman€said€happened€overÐ pÀ Ðthis€course€of€four€or€five€months€and€what€Dr.€Woodford€says,€the€defendant,Ð \¬ Ðparticularly€in€the€conversations€they€had€with€one€another€and€Mr.€Thomas.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àParticularly€conversations€with€Mr.€Thomas€because€the€Court€really€keyedÐ  p Ðin€on€his€testimony.€€I€was€listening€to€him€because€I€felt€like€he€is€a€party€that€wouldÐ  \ Ðbe€the€most€unbiased€in€this€case.€€He€really€doesnððt€have€anything€to€gain€or€lose€outÐ øH Ðof€this.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€understand€he€does€have€a€case€pending€in€general€sessions€court€now€thatÐ ¼  ÐMr.€Ofman€has€filed;€but€I€really€feel€like,€at€least€of€the€witnesses€that€Iððve€heard,Ð ¨ø Ðthat€he€would€be€the€one€that€would€be€the€most€unbiased.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àSo€I€do€have€to€make€the€decision€on€who€I€believe.€€And€if€I€say€I€believe€Mr.Ð l¼ ÐOfman€over€you€Dr.€Woodford,€again€itððs€not€just€because€I€think€you€are€lying.€€IÐ X ¨ Ðthink€itððs€because€of€the€way€youððre€wired,€the[]€way€youððre€made€up€because€of€yourÐ D!” Ðtraining,€because€of€your€field.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àYou€may€have€seen€and€heard€things€during€your€relationship€with€Mr.Ð $X" ÐOfman€differently.€€I€think€you€have€seen€things€differently,€just€because€of€the€wayÐ ô$D # Ðthat€youððre€wired€because€youððre€a€chemist.€€And€in€this€arena€anyway€we€deal€moreÐ à%0!$ Ðwith€cold,€hard€facts€than€possibilities.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àHaving€said€all€that,€General€Baugh,€Iððm€going€to€ask€that€you€prepare€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðorder€in€this€case.€€I€find€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€in€this€case.€€I€find€that€Mr.€OfmanÐ )à$( Ðwas€a€party€to€this€contract.€€Whether€itððs€incidental€or€a€third€party€beneficiary,€IÐ |*Ì%) Ðreally€donððt€know€that€Iððm€going€to€have€to€make€a€finding€on€that.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà8  àà ` àBut,€in€any€event,€I€find€that€he€is€a€party€in€this€case€and€entitled€to€recovery.€Ð ° ÐI€find€that€as€it€relates€to€the€contract€that€existed€between€him€and€Mr.€WoodfordÐ œì Ðthat€he,€Mr.€Ofman,€performed€his€obligations€based€on€his€course€of€dealings€withÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€in€the€past€as€he€knew€his€obligations€to€be.€€He€performed€those€and,Ð tÄ Ðfor€whatever€reason,€Mr.€Woodford€did€not.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àI€find,€therefore,€that€there€was€a€breach€of€contract€and€that€Mr.€WoodfordÐ 8 ˆ Ðdid,€in€fact,€breach€his€bargain€and€contract€and,€as€a€result,€Mr.€Ofman€sufferedÐ $ t Ðdamages€and€I€find€for€Mr.€Ofman€in€the€amount€of€$2500.00.€€I€find€that€Exhibit€13,Ð  ` Ðwhere€Mr.€Ofman€issued€a€check€back€to€Mr.€Davis,€is€evidence€of€that€damage€inÐ ü L  Ðthe€amount€of€$2500.00.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àSo,€therefore,€I€find€for€Mr.€Ofman€in€the€amount€of€$2500.00€and€attach€costÐ À  Ðof€this€matter€to€the€defendant.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àSo,€it€is€that€from€hotly€disputed€testimony€that€the€trial€judge,€able€to€observe€the€mannerÐ „Ô  Ðand€demeanor€of€all€of€the€witnesses,€accepted€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Ofman€and€rejected€theÐ pÀ Ðtestimony€of€Dr.€Woodford.€€The€rules€governing€appellate€review€in€these€circumstances€are€wellÐ \¬ Ðsettled:€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà ` àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€theÐ  p Ðcase€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€factÐ  \ Ðby€the€trial€court.€€Unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€mustÐ øH Ðaffirm€absent€error€of€law.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€chancellor€was€faced€with€conflicting€testimony€from€Taylor€on€the€oneÐ ¼  Ðhand€and€Kovsky€on€the€other.€€As€the€trier€of€fact,€the€chancellor€had€the€opportunityÐ ¨ø Ðto€observe€the€manner€and€demeanor€of€the€witnesses€as€they€testified.€€The€weight,Ð ”ä Ðfaith,€and€credit€to€be€given€to€a€witnessððs€testimony€lies€in€the€first€instance€with€theÐ €Ð Ðchancellor€as€the€trier€of€fact,€and€the€credibility€accorded€will€be€given€great€weightÐ l¼ Ðby€the€appellate€court.€€òòMays€v.€Brighton€Bank,€óó832€S.W.2d€347,€352€(Tenn.€App.Ð X ¨ Ð1992);€òòÔ_ÔSiskÔ_Ô€v.€Valley€Forge€Ins.€Co.óó,€640€S.W.2d€844,€849€(Tenn.€App.€1982).ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòTaylor€v.€Trans€Aero€Corp.óó,€924€S.W.2d€109,€112€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFrom€our€view€of€the€record,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÐ ô$D # Ðcourtððs€finding€that€the€parties€to€the€contract€were€Lee€Ofman,€the€attorney€and€Dr.€JamesÐ à%0!$ ÐWoodford,€the€expert€witness,€not€the€client,€Zane€Davis,€and€the€expert€witness€Dr.€JamesÐ Ì&"% ÐWoodford.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThis€is€the€only€issue€raised€on€appeal.€€If,€however,€Dr.€Woodfordððs€breach€of€the€contractÐ )à$( Ðissue€was€before€the€court,€the€same€rule€would€apply.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔOfmanÔ_Ô€testified€that€Dr.€WoodfordÐ |*Ì%) Ðrefused€to€properly€prepare€his€testimony€in€the€Davis€case€and€refused€to€meet€with€him€prior€to€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðin€order€to€review€his€testimony.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔWoodfordÔ_Ô€testified€that€it€was€Mr.€Ofman€who€refused€to€beÐ ° Ðcooperative.€€The€trial€judge€accepted€the€version€of€the€facts€put€forth€by€Mr.€Ofman€and€theÐ œì Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€that€finding€of€fact.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAccepting€Mr.€Ofmanððs€version€of€the€facts,€a€meeting€of€the€minds,€mutual€assent€to€termsÐ `° Ðand€sufficient€consideration€was€established€so€that€the€contract€between€Ofman€and€Woodford€wasÐ L œ Ðsufficiently€definite€to€be€enforceable.€€òòPrice€v.€Mercury€Supply€Co.,€Inc.óó,€682€S.W.2d€924€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCt.€App.€1984).€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€that€Dr.Ð $ t ÐWoodford€breached€the€contract€and€that€Ô_ÔMr.Ô_Ô€Ofman€suffered€a€resulting€$2500€in€damages.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€respects€affirmed,€and€costs€of€the€cause€are€assessedÐ è 8  Ðagainst€Dr.€Woodford.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌ€€€€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ H˜ Ð