WPCU 3# UN %3 0(9w@a4 0l 0D0t D3| 0J 0T 0^M 0h 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d AQ A 0D 0@K 0D D/ U > B< BY B)v DC AM U*/ Y T9v~vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EUUeDӀz=#*NNt3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  ))))'dxd2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 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!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ((' dxd<  9p`(&Times New RomanP Pd d% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+C << G<  9p`(Arial !'  ""  --   YYY FILED-XOctober3,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   !'   $       ݀ Quinnanv.AmericanHosp.SupplyCorp. ,No.85195II,1985WL4076(Tenn.App.29Oct.1985). !'   $       ݀ Winklerv.FleetlineProds.,Inc. ,859S.W.2d340(Tenn.App.1993).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . '  ݛ\RA'\ќ'\RA'\ћ @ ' INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTION@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE'TheOutdoorSource,Inc.,  ) Plaintiff/Appellant,  ) AppealNo.̜!R,.+A1-j|`  `@Rߛ      ) 01A019702CH00053v.      )      ) ChanceryCourtNo.OutdoorEntertainment,Inc.,  ) 952732I Defendant/Appellee.  )@ ' ORDER'   Thiscourtenteredanorderon13August1997intheabovestyledcase.Defendant/appellee,OutdoorEntertainment,Inc.( OEI),filedapetitionforrehearingon25August1997.Itistheopinionofthiscourtthatthepetitionshouldbedenied. OEIarguesthepartieswerenotheardontheissueofwhetherthecontractcontainedanunequivocalprovision.Tothecontrary,plaintiff/appellant,TheOutdoorSource,Inc.( TOSI),raisedthisissueinitsinitialbrief.OEIhadtheopportunitytorespondinitsbriefandduringoralargument. OEIalsoarguesourconclusionthatsection11(a)constitutedanunlawfulforfeitureandourrelianceon Quinnan  /   ׀arecontradictory.Specifically,OEIstates:  Quinnan heldthatpartiesmayagreethatnocommissionswillbepaidafterasalespersonsemploymentisterminated,solongassuchagreementisunequivocal.However,theCourtsholdingthatthiscontractevenifunequivocalwouldworkaforfeitureagainstTOSIisinconsistentwith Quinnan and Winkler . 0   Thiscourtdidnotholdthatanunequivocalagreementwouldhaveoperatedasaforfeiture.Instead,thiscourtdecidedbasedonourearlierconclusionthattheAgreementdidnotcontainanunequivocalexpressionthatOEIsinterpretationofsection11(a)constitutedaforfeiture.DespiteOEIsassertionstothecontrary,thiscourtdidnotaddresstheissueofwhethertherewouldhavebeenaforfeitureifsection11(a)unequivocallydeniedTOSIpostterminationcommissions. WehaveconsideredallremainingargumentsraisedbyOEIandfindthemtobewithoutmerit. Therefore,itfollowsthatthepetitionforrehearingisherebydenied.Costsofthispetitionaretaxedagainstpetitioner/appellee,OutdoorEntertainment,Inc. Enterthisthe____dayofSeptember1997.       ______________________________       HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDING        JUDGE,MIDDLESECTION       ______________________________       SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE       ______________________________       BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE