ÿWPCe Ð[„Ábèn¸ÈXFB@`R™À,=vgt>„ÃKPïÛLè)\³þ‡Ó Îæ«åý·ÓË@]“ïK˜rüRúº™McðÔe°ÁéOF\>z¾ud`†Œ½O @‹´§»ã!š¶WzÆô˹±#µë¤j·“Œ"…9zÖw½_=Ò'K†ùNeЃ¯°öè§m(ĆqFPE#4RÉ—‘=X5¼ÇŽ$ÏJ¶}½®†’p¼]~5½ ­ë7m–Ál0—“Peª¿·©S=<Ìmç ›t CzЭpDß d>Œ˜{oÓ¼|q?L–cpJæ#¨™˜5 IN²Š[²"ØSâDl(0}J…¥m#âÇŸÅó™ç¯ˆ/”ÏÈÃm]┃ÑkáÉ8;sq:ÓULÂGÍ`uÉFµ=éïN/qb¡\ØÚ4Æb#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy UN 0DO u“ z Ò‚ ^ Tw`Zd4¾ÆÒƘÆ^Æ$@êN*,;E= m?VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVbZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 0ëbbbb BMM 0¤j D3 D-A 0Knn AS¹Æ  0¤Ò 0Dv A«º˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó kÝ ƒRæ_$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôøåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€While€the€trial€courtððs€order€dated€March€20,€2002€states€that€there€were€three€(3)€checks€in€the€total€amountÐ ° Ðof€$17,500.00,€the€record€reveals€that€there€were€four€(4)€checks€in€the€total€amount€of€$17,500.00.€ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptŽO/Ï  PÝ ƒRæ_$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôøåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€These€parties,€however,€are€not€relevant€to€this€appeal.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€court€granted€a€motion€to€dismissÐ ° Ðthe€Bank€of€Nashville€and€Branch€Banking€&€Trust.€Thereafter,€on€March€12,€2001,€the€trial€court€entered€a€defaultÐ tÄ Ðjudgment€against€APG€for€its€failure€to€appear€or€otherwise€respond€to€USACððs€summons€and€complaint€as€well€as€itsÐ 8ˆ Ðfailure€to€respond€to€the€notice€of€the€motion€for€default€judgment.€€On€April€5,€2001,€the€trial€court€entered€an€orderÐ üL Ðawarding€USAC€a€judgment€against€APG€in€the€amount€of€$31,823.24.€€Apparently,€USAC€has€not€attempted€to€enforceÐ À Ðthis€judgment.€€€€€Ð „Ô Ѐo=/ê:i¢×+00Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 6Ý ƒRæ_$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôøåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€To€protect€its€interest,€Viracon€filed€a€lien€against€the€Carmax€project€in€the€amount€of€$29,000.00,€whichÐ ° ÐRPI€paid.€€USAC€did€not€file€a€lien€on€the€project.€€€3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  R.P.Soloman COACashionGalanterCarmax APGViraconLoudon S.W.Haywood JTLY RPI USACestopped- ù-(|G2æ_$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôøåò»»Ô d(|3 _$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 _$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼D¥»»»ÔÑ8€éXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îE$D¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼D¥»îîE$#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMARCH€20,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XéX»¼D¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼D¥»XXé#ÔR.€P.€INDUSTRIES,€INC.òòóó€v.€UNITED€STATES€ALUMINUMÐ úJ ÐCORPORATION€„€CAROLINAòòóóÔ‡XéX»¼D¥Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00C„347€€€€€€Carol€Soloman,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„00897„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€15,€2003ó óÔ#†¼D¥»XXé°#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼D¥Ôò òÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XéXXXéÔThis€appeal€arises€from€a€dispute€over€an€agreement€to€issue€joint€checks.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÐ ŒÜ Ðthe€parties€had€an€agreement€whereby€the€general€contractor€was€to€issue€checks€jointly€payable€toÐ xÈ Ðthe€sub„contractor€and€the€materials€supplier,€which€the€general€contractor€breached€when€it€issuedÐ d´ Ðsingle€payee€checks.€€The€court€awarded€the€materials€supplier€$17,500.00.€€ò òó óThe€parties€raise€twoÐ P  Ðissues€on€appeal.€€For€the€following€reasons,€we€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€and€remand.€ò òÐ <Œ Ðó óÔ#†XéXXXé #ÔÔ#†¼D¥»XXék#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼D¥ÔÌÓýÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð P ÐReversed€in€Part€and€Remandedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼D¥»àXéÍ#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼D¥ÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.,óó€and€òòHollyÐ Ä ÐM.€Kirby,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌGregory€L.€Cashion,€Nashville,€TN,€for€AppellantÐ ˆØ ÐÌJoel€T.€Galanter,€Nashville,€TN;€Scott€A.€Frick,€Memphis,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ `!°  ÐÓ¦ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼D¥»XXéÕ#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼D¥ÔÐ 8#ˆ" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼D¥»XXé© #ÔÔ‡XéX»¼D¥ÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡XéXXXéÔà@ÿÿìàFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ %` $ ÐÌà  àR.P.€Industries€(ð ðRPIðð)€was€the€general€contractor€that€constructed€a€car€dealership€inÐ è&8"& ÐNashville€for€Carmax.€€Asheville€Plate€Glass€(ð ðAPGðð),€a€subcontractor€on€this€project,€was€to€furnishÐ Ô'$#' Ðand€install€all€the€glass€for€the€storefront€as€well€as€the€windows€and€doors.€€United€States€AluminumÐ À($( ÐCorporation„€Carolina€(ð ðUSACðð)€supplied€materials€used€on€the€project€to€APG.€Ð ¬)ü$) ÐÌà  àUSAC€requested€that€APG€execute€a€Joint€Check€Agreement€with€RPI.€€€In€January€of€1999,Ð „+Ô&+ ÐAPG€gave€USAC€a€joint€check€agreement€purportedly€signed€by€RPI.€€This€agreement€provided€thatÐ p,À', Ðchecks€issued€by€RPI€would€be€payable€jointly€to€APG€and€USAC.€Ð \-¬(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àOn€March€16,€1999,€USAC€sent€a€letter€to€RPI€seeking€RPIððs€ð ðcooperation€in€issuing€ððjointÐ ° Ðchecksðð€payable€toðð€APG€and€USAC.€€Thereafter,€on€May€3,€1999,€RPI€transmitted€a€fax€to€USACÐ œì Ðconfirming€that€the€joint€check€had€been€prepared.€€The€fax€also€stated€that€USAC€would€be€paid€byÐ ˆØ Ðjoint€check€once€RPI€received€a€lien€waiver.€€USAC€responded€on€May€14,€1999€by€sending€RPI€aÐ tÄ ÐConditional€Waiver€and€Release€Upon€Progress€Payment€which€indicated€that€RPI€would€issue€aÐ `° Ðjoint€check.€€Upon€receipt€of€the€waiver,€RPI€forwarded€the€check€to€APG€with€instructions€that€APGÐ L œ Ðwas€to€endorse€the€check€and€forward€it€to€USAC.€€Instead€of€complying€with€these€instructions,Ð 8 ˆ ÐAPG€endorsed€the€check€and€placed€it€in€its€account.€€€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAPG€sent€USAC€a€check€in€the€amount€of€$6,194.00€on€May€15,€1999€and€a€check€in€theÐ ü L  Ðamount€of€$27,446.42€on€May€25,€1999.€€No€one€at€USAC€inquired€as€to€why€they€did€not€receiveÐ è 8  Ða€joint€check€in€the€amount€fo€$45,000.00.€€At€the€same€time€RPI€issued€the€$45,000.00€joint€checkÐ Ô$  Ðto€APG€and€USAC,€RPI€issued€a€joint€check€in€the€amount€of€$49,255.00€to€APG€and€Viracon,Ð À  Ðanother€supplier.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAfter€issuing€the€joint€check€for€$45,000.00,€an€RPI€employee€authorized€the€payments€toÐ „Ô  Ðbe€released€directly€to€APG.€€RPI€paid€$17,500.00€solely€to€APG€with€four€additional€payments€inÐ pÀ Ðthe€amounts€of€$5,000.00;€$5,000.00;€$5,000.00;€and€$2,500.00.€€At€the€time€RPI€issued€these€directÐ \¬ Ðpayments€to€APG,€RPI€had€no€knowledge€that€APG€had€not€paid€its€suppliers,€both€USAC€andÐ H˜ ÐViracon€with€the€two€joint€checks.€€USAC€continued€to€supply€materials€to€APG€in€June€and€JulyÐ 4„ Ðof€1999.€€It€was€not€until€August€10,€1999€that€USAC€notified€RPI€that€it€was€owed€$31,823.24€onÐ  p Ðthe€Carmax€project.€€On€August€19,€1999,€RPI€wrote€USAC€advising€them€that€a€joint€check€in€theÐ  \ Ðamount€of€$45,000.00€had€been€issued€and€requesting€that€USAC€execute€an€Affidavit€of€ForgedÐ øH ÐSignature€or€Missing€Endorsement€to€be€given€to€RPIððs€bank.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àOn€February€4,€2000,€USAC€filed€suit€against€RPI,€seeking€payment€for€materials€providedÐ ¼  Ðby€USAC€on€the€Carmax€project.€€USAC€claimed€that€it€was€entitled€to€recover€from€RPI€forÐ ¨ø Ðpayments€it€did€not€receive€from€APG,€pursuant€to€a€joint€check€agreement€between€RPI€and€APG.€Ð ”ä ÐThe€complaint€also€named€APG,€The€Bank€of€Nashville,€and€Branch€Bank€&€Trust€as€defendants.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð €Ð ЀÌà  àRPI€filed€its€answer€on€April€17,€2000€and€later€amended€this€answer€on€April€9,€2001.€€InÐ X ¨ Ðits€amended€answer,€RPI€alleged€that€the€joint€checking€agreement€was€a€forgery.€€The€trial€courtÐ D!” Ðentered€an€agreed€order€allowing€RPI€to€amend€its€answer€on€April€30,€2001.€Ð 0"€  Їà  àUSAC€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€September€6,€2001,€asserting€that€it€wasÐ ° Ðentitled€to€summary€judgment€because€RPI€had€breached€a€joint€checking€agreement€and€that€thereÐ œì Ðwere€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact.€€Subsequently,€RPI€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€Ð ˆØ ÐThere€is€no€record€of€a€ruling€on€either€of€these€motions.€€€€€€€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€was€held€on€February€26,€2002€and€the€final€order€entered€on€March€20,€2002.€€TheÐ L œ Ðcourt€found€that€the€joint€check€agreement€between€RPI€and€APG€was€forged€and€was€thus€invalid.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐHowever,€the€court€found€that€the€parties€subsequently€entered€into€an€agreement€to€issue€jointÐ $ t Ðchecks.€€The€court€further€found€that€RPI€violated€this€agreement€ð ðby€not€sending€three€checksÐ  ` Ðtotaling€Seventeen€Thousand€Five€Hundred€00/100€Dollars€($17,500.00).ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Stated€another€way,€theÐ ü L  Ðcourt€found€that€RPI€violated€the€agreement€by€issuing€these€checks€solely€to€APG.€€The€court€alsoÐ è 8  Ðfound€that€RPI€did€not€have€an€obligation€to€ensure€that€APG€ð ðdid€not€commit€a€felony€by€cashingÐ Ô$  Ðthe€checks€without€the€express€permission€of€United€States€Aluminum€Corporation€or€the€signatureÐ À  Ðof€both€parties.ðð€€Instead,€RPIððs€only€duty€was€to€issue€joint€checks.€€The€court€awarded€USACÐ ¬ü  Ð$17,500.00.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àRPI€filed€its€notice€of€appeal€on€April€12,€2002.€€On€April€18,€2002,€USAC€filed€a€MotionÐ pÀ Ðto€Alter€or€Amend€Judgment€and€for€Discretionary€Costs,€seeking€prejudgment€interests€and€costs.€Ð \¬ ÐThereafter,€on€May€21,€2002,€the€judge€issued€an€amended€order€awarding€USAC€prejudgmentÐ H˜ Ðinterest€and€discretionary€costs.€€RPI€filed€its€second€notice€of€appeal€on€June€18,€2002.€€This€CourtÐ 4„ Ðgranted€RPIððs€motion€to€consolidate€on€July€1,€2002.€€The€parties€raise€the€following€issues€for€ourÐ  p Ðreview.€€€€€€€€€òòóó€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÐ  \ ÐÓ  Óò òIssuesó óÐ øH ÐÓK%ÓÌà  àà ` àI.ò òà0 ¸ àó óWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€there€was€an€agreement€betweenÐ Ð  Ðthe€parties€to€issue€joint€checks.м ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àà ` àII.à0 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€RPI€is€only€liable€for€$17,500.00,Ð ”ä Ðinstead€of€$33,114.79€which€is€the€full€outstanding€balance€on€the€account,Ð €Ð Ðfor€its€breach€of€the€agreement€to€issue€joint€checks.Ðl¼¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓ  Óò òStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ D!” ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€a€trial€court€are€given€a€presumption€of€correctness€that€will€notÐ #l! Ðbe€overturned€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòTenn.€R.€App.€Póó.€13(d);Ð $X" Ðòòsee€also€Bank/First€Citizens€v.€Citizens€and€Assocóó.,€82€S.W.3d€259,€262€(Tenn.€2002).€€A€trialÐ ô$D # Ðcourtððs€ruling€on€a€matter€of€law,€however,€will€be€reviewed€ð ðððunder€a€pure€òòde€novo€óóstandard€.€.€.Ð à%0!$ Ðaccording€no€deference€to€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€court[].ðððð€òòBank/First€Citizensóó,Ð Ì&"% Ð82€S.W.3d€at€727€(quoting€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€County€Bd.€of€Educóó.,€58€S.W.3dÐ ¸'#& Ð706,€710€(Tenn.€2001)).€Ð ¤(ô#' Їò òà@ðð"ìàLaw€and€Analysisó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àRPI€first€argues€that€it€never€entered€into€a€joint€check€agreement€with€any€party€in€this€case.€Ð ˆØ ÐSpecifically,€RPI€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€USACððs€March€16,€1999€letterÐ tÄ Ðconstituted€an€agreement€to€issue€joint€checks.€€RPI€asserts€that€the€letter€was€a€unilateral€act€byÐ `° ÐUSAC€and€that€RPI€never€communicated€with€USAC€in€response€to€the€letter.€€RPI€further€arguesÐ L œ Ðthat€there€was€no€mutual€assent,€no€offer,€no€acceptance€and€no€consideration€and€that€without€theseÐ 8 ˆ Ðelements€there€can€be€no€contract.€Ð $ t Ѐ€€Ð  ` Ðà  àIn€response,€USAC€argues€that€even€if€the€original€joint€check€agreement€was€a€forgery€andÐ ü L  Ðthus€invalid,€that€the€parties€subsequently€reached€an€agreement€to€issue€joint€checks.€€USAC€assertsÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€March€16,€1999€letter€indicated€that€USAC€expected€to€receive€payment€by€joint€check€andÐ Ô$  Ðthat€RPI,€through€is€May€3,€1999€facsimile,€agreed€to€issue€a€joint€check€upon€receipt€of€a€partial€lienÐ À  Ðwaiver€signed€by€USAC.€€USAC€asserts€that€it€gave€consideration€in€the€form€of€continuing€toÐ ¬ü  Ðsupply€all€material€to€the€job€and€by€executing€the€lien€waiver.€€USAC€asserts€that€RPI€breached€thisÐ ˜è  Ðagreement€by€ð ðfailing€to€properly€complete€the€payee€designation€of€the€check.ðð€€USAC€also€assertsÐ „Ô  Ðthat€RPIððs€failure€to€properly€execute€the€$45,000.00€check€as€a€joint€check€and€the€ð ðsubsequentÐ pÀ Ðdisregard€of€this€agreement€by€issuing€three€additional€checks€totaling€$17,500.00€made€payableÐ \¬ Ðsolely€to€[APG]ðð€caused€USAC€to€be€underpaid€on€the€project.€€As€a€result,€USAC€asks€this€CourtÐ H˜ Ðto€hold€RPI€liable€in€the€amount€of€$33,114.79,€which€represents€USACððs€unpaid€balance€on€theÐ 4„ Ðproject.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àA€contract€is€simply€an€agreement,€based€upon€adequate€consideration,€ð ðto€do€or€not€do€aÐ øH Ðparticular€thing.ðð€€òòJohnson€v.€The€Central€National€Insurance€Company€of€Omaha,€Nebraskaóó,€356Ð ä4 ÐS.W.2d€277,€281€(Tenn.€1962)€(citations€omitted).€€A€contract€may€be€either€express€or€implied,Ð Ð  Ðwritten€or€oral€and€ð ðmust€result€from€a€meeting€of€the€minds€of€the€parties€in€mutual€assent€to€theÐ ¼  Ðterms,€must€be€based€upon€sufficient€consideration,€.€.€.€and€sufficiently€definite€to€be€enforced.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ¨ø Ðat€281€(citing€òòAmerican€Lead€Pencil€Co.€v.€Nashville,€Chattanooga€&€St.€Louis€Ry.€Co.óó,€134€S.W.Ð ”ä Ð613€(€Tenn.€1910)).€€€€€€à  àà h àÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àWithin€the€framework€of€the€above€contract€principals,€we€now€turn€to€the€documents€atÐ X ¨ Ðissue.€€The€March€16,€1999€letter€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:Ð D!” Ðà  àÌà  àGentlemen:Ð #l! ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓWe€are€material€suppliers€on€the€above€job€furnishing€commercial€aluminumÐ ô$D # Ðstorefronts,€sections€&€entrances€to€your€sub„contractor,€Asheville€Plate€Glass.€€It€hasÐ à%0!$ Ðbeen€our€experience€in€the€last€six€months€that€15%€to€20%€of€pre„arranged€jointÐ Ì&"% Ðcheck€payment€agreements€are€inadvertently€paid€solely€to€sub„contractor.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌAs€this€may€subject€all€parties€to€unnecessary€liability,€we€ask€your€cooperation€inÐ )à$( Ðissuing€ð ðjoint€checksðð€payable€to€Asheville€Plate€Glass€and€United€States€AluminumÐ |*Ì%) ÐCorporation/Carolina.€€Your€assistance€would€be€appreciated.Ð h+¸&* ЇWe€thank€you€and€wish€you€well€on€favorable€completion€of€this€job.Ð ° ÐÌSincerely,Ð ˆØ ÐòòUNITED€STATES€ALUMINUM€CORPORATION/CAROLINAóóÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ X7ÓÓ X7ÓThe€May€3,€1999€facsimile€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:à È àÐ L œ ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓA€joint€check€with€Asheville€Plate€Glass€Co.,€276€Haywood€Road,€Asheville,€NC€hasÐ $ t Ðbeen€prepared€by€us.€€Please€fully€complete€and€execute€the€attached€partial€lienÐ  ` Ðwaiver€and€return€by€fax€to€the€undersigned€to€FAX€#(615)€595„2476.€€Upon€receiptÐ ü L  Ðof€same€we€will€forward€your€joint€check€to€Asheville€Plate€Glass€by€regular€mail€toÐ è 8  Ðbe€endorsed€and€sent€on€to€you.€€Should€you€have€any€questions,€please€do€notÐ Ô$  Ðhesitate€to€contact€me€at€(615)€595„2422.€Ð À  ÐÓ X§;ÓÓ X™;ÓÌà  àWe€find€that€USACððs€March€16,€1999€letter€in€and€of€itself€was€insufficient€to€support€aÐ ˜è  Ðfinding€of€a€joint€check€agreement.€€The€letter€made€a€vague€reference€to€ð ðpre„arranged€joint€checkÐ „Ô  Ðpayment€agreementsðð€and€simply€expressed€USACððs€desire€for€RPIððs€ð ðcooperation€in€issuing€ððjointÐ pÀ Ðchecks.ðððð€We€do€find,€however,€that€the€parties€did€have€an€agreement€to€issue€a€joint€check€in€theÐ \¬ Ðamount€of€$45,000.00.€€In€its€May€3,€1999€facsimile,€RPI€stated€that€upon€receipt€of€a€partial€lienÐ H˜ Ðwaiver,€a€joint€check€would€be€issued€to€APG€to€be€forwarded€to€USAC.€€As€consideration,€USACÐ 4„ Ðsent€RPI€a€partial€lien€waiver€that€covered€a€ð ðprogress€payment€for€labor,€services,€equipment€orÐ  p Ðmaterial€furnished€to€Asheville€Plate€Glass€through€April€30,€1999€only€and€[did]€not€cover€anyÐ  \ Ðretention€or€items€furnished€after€said€date.ðð€€In€its€facsimile,€RPI€offered€to€execute€and€forward€aÐ øH Ðjoint€check€if€USAC€executed€a€partial€lien€waiver,€which€it€did.€€We€find€that€there€was€an€offer,Ð ä4 Ðacceptance,€consideration€and€mutual€assent€and€thus€a€valid€agreement.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€find,€however,€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€support€a€finding€of€anÐ ¨ø Ðongoing€joint€check€agreement€that€encompassed€the€four€(4)€additional€payments€in€the€amount€ofÐ ”ä Ð$17,500.00.€€The€May€3,€1999€facsimile€and€the€May€14,€1999€partial€lien€waiver€referenced€a€jointÐ €Ð Ðcheck€in€the€amount€of€$45,000.00.€€There€are€no€documents€in€the€record€that€support€an€agreementÐ l¼ Ðto€issue€joint€checks€thereafter.€€We€find€no€evidence€of€offer,€acceptance,€consideration,€or€mutualÐ X ¨ Ðassent€sufficient€to€find€that€there€was€an€ongoing€agreement€to€issue€joint€checks.€€Thus,€RPI€hadÐ D!” Ðno€duty€to€issue€the€four€(4)€additional€payments€in€the€total€amount€of€$17,500.00€in€the€form€ofÐ 0"€  Ðjoint€checks.€€RPIððs€only€duty€was€to€issue€a€joint€check€in€the€amount€of€$45,000.00.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àOn€April€30,€1999,€RPI€executed€a€check€in€the€amount€of€$45,000.00€payable€toÐ ô$D # Ðð ðASHEVILLE€PLATE€GLASS/€US€ALUMINUM€JTLY.ðð€€APG€endorsed€the€check€and€BranchÐ à%0!$ ÐBank€&€Trust€and€the€Bank€of€Nashville€issued€payment€on€the€check.€€The€Banks€subsequently€filedÐ Ì&"% Ðmotions€to€dismiss,€which€the€trial€court€granted.€€In€its€brief,€USAC€claims€that€in€ruling€on€theÐ ¸'#& ÐBanksðð€motions€to€dismiss,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€payee€designation€on€the€check€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðambiguous€and€that€the€check€was€payable€alternatively€to€APG€or€USAC.€€The€order€cited€by€USACÐ )à$( Ðin€their€brief€contains€no€such€ruling.€€The€order€merely€states€that€the€Banksðð€motions€to€dismiss€areÐ |*Ì%) Ðwell€taken€and€should€be€granted.€€The€slash€mark€or€virgule€which€separated€the€names€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðpayees€on€the€check€is€used€ð ðto€separate€alternatives.ðð€òòAmerican€Heritage€Dictionary.óó€€See€alsoÐ ° ÐT.C.A.€ðð€47„3„110(d).òò€óó€The€abbreviation€ð ðJTLYðð€appears,€in€retrospect,€to€mean€ð ðjointlyðð€but€thereÐ œì Ðapparently€was€a€question€raised€in€the€trial€court€about€this€terminology.€€Thus€we€remand€for€aÐ ˆØ Ðdetermination€as€to€RPIððs€liability,€if€any,€regarding€the€issuance€of€the€$45,000.00€check.€€€€€€€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àUSAC€argues€in€the€alternative€that€if€it€is€found€that€there€was€not€an€express€contract,€thenÐ L œ Ðthere€was€an€agreement€implied€in€fact€to€issue€joint€checks.€€Specifically,€USAC€argues€that€RPIÐ 8 ˆ Ðaccepted€USACððs€materials€for€the€Carmax€project€with€the€express€understanding€that€USACÐ $ t Ðexpected€to€be€paid€in€the€form€of€joint€checks.€€Our€finding€that€there€was€an€express€agreement€toÐ  ` Ðissue€a€joint€check€in€the€amount€of€$45,000.00€renders€any€discussion€of€this€point€moot.€€USACÐ ü L  Ðadvances€no€argument€that€it€should€be€entitled€to€the€$17,500.00€due€to€a€contract€implied€in€fact.€Ð è 8  Ѐ€€€€€€€€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àUSAC€also€argues€in€the€alternative€that€RPI€should€be€estopped€from€denying€itsÐ À  Ðrepresentation€that€a€joint€check€would€be€issued.€€This€argument,€however,€was€not€raised€in€the€trialÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt€and€as€such€we€will€not€considered€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòLawrence€v.€Stanfordóó,€655€S.W.2d€927,€929Ð ˜è  Ð(Tenn.€1983)€(holding€that€issues€not€properly€raised€at€trial€cannot€be€raised€for€the€first€time€onÐ „Ô  Ðappeal).à ` àà ¸ àà  àÐ pÀ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓConclusionó óÐ H˜ ÐÓ¤QÓÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part€and€remand.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ  p Ðfinding€that€there€was€an€agreement€between€the€parties€to€issue€a€joint€check€in€the€amount€ofÐ  \ Ð$45,000.00,€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€$17,500.00€in€damages,€and€remand€for€€proceedingsÐ øH Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€equally€against€the€Appellant,€R.P.Ð ä4 ÐIndustries,€Inc.,€and€its€surety,€as€well€as€Appellee€United€States€Aluminum€Corporation„Carolina,Ð Ð  Ðfor€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð ¼  ÐÔ#†XéXXXé5 #ÔÔ#†¼D¥»XXé #ÔÔ€XéX»¼D¥ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE