WPC+ Ѱ\_Q ^ e+&x;\rGΦ|NG2g%hA#2g;Uaσ"%dGSbCi3ǰ7J.,R6# %A q+`eD_ } VUtO{p50kҢA9dWg ͰV3kLHDrV{1K`K |7f@T%udZȊkz< (mZ;[M}, XgPP3G4+9١'<+r F؇/]QPsayג'X% 0%^ <&wH&4L&b`&h&w& my&y& 0D&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 0&&&& B'' 0' D3( D-( 0K(( AS+)~) 0D* 0D* A,+HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,02G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 522+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default ParaXXXXXX\  `&Times New Roman0;;.header   !XXX   !XXXcq) uV)+00- -3|xU(#$  0  (|G2$ !.8dd8         0  t d(|3#$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3#$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8 XXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# #Ԉ ,   October5,2000Session X X X #XX #LAWRENCEO.WESTFALLv.BRENTWOODSERVICEGROUP,INC.X X   ` @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforBradleyCounty  h @@No.97181_Jerri_ԀBryant,Chancellor  X FILEDNOVEMBER17,_2000_  8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.E200001086_COA_ԄR3CV '  AV) ` dE<` A      #XX {#X X)X FXXX LawrenceO._Westfall_Ԁfiledsuitagainsthisformeremployer,BrentwoodServiceGroup,Inc.,  seekingpaymentofpostemploymentcommissionsallegedlyduehim.Thedefendant  counterclaimedforbreachofanoncompetition/nondisclosureagreement.Followingabenchtrial,  thecourtbelowawardedpostemploymentcommissionstotheplaintiffanddismissedthe z defendantscounterclaim,findingthatthepartieshadnotagreedtothenoncompetition/non f disclosureagreement.Theemployernowappeals,claimingthattheplaintiffisnotentitledtopost R employmentcommissionsandthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtoenforcethepartiesallegednon > competition/nondisclosureagreement.Weaffirm.#X XX)X F>##XX #X X *z  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt V Affirmed;CaseRemanded  F   #X  #X X.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_, & _P.J._,andD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,joined.  J.ChristopherHallandJaneM._Stahl_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,BrentwoodService   Group,Inc. !  Marvin_Berke_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,LawrenceO.Westfall. v#"   OPINION #XX  #X X V% $ #XX #X X    I. 6'"& ^   Thedefendant,BrentwoodServiceGroup,Inc.( BSG),providespayrollfundingand )f$( administrativeservicestothetemporaryhelpindustry.Theplaintiff,LawrenceO.Westfall,went *V%) toworkasasalesmanfor_BSG_Ԁinmid1992.Westfallssoleemploymentresponsibilitywasto *F&* procurecustomersforBSG.Afteracustomersignedacontractwith_BSG_,_Westfall_Ԁhadnomore +6'+ dutieswithrespecttothatclient. ,&(,  -)-   OnNovember30,1992,Westfallauthoredaletterdetailinghisunderstandingofhis  compensationarrangement.Theletterstates,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8  8`   Iamconfirmingacceptanceofthesalary/commissionstructurethat  wediscussedtoday.Iwillreceivea$30,000annualbase/drawwith p acommission3/4ofonepercentor.75%ofgrossbillingsproduction `  thefirstyearforanewcompanyand1/4ofonepercentor.25%of P  grossbillingsproductionforthesecondyearforthatsamecompany.@ ` x` x 8  8`   Wewillrevieweachquarteragainstmy$30,000base/drawandat  p  anytimeduringanyquarterthat_commision_Ԁ[sic]isearnedinexcess `  of$30,000annualizedor$7500aquarter,commissionwillbepaid.P ` x` x Theletter,acknowledgedandsignedbyBSGspresident,doesnotexplicitlyaddresswhatistooccur 0  intheevent_Westfall_Ԁceasestobeemployedby_BSG_.     _Westfall_sbasepaywassubsequentlyincreasedfrom$30,000to$36,000.Itisundisputed  thatheremainedonthesamecommissionstructure,exceptthepartiesagreethatthe$36,000figure  replacedthelesserfigureinallphasesofhisemploymentcompensationscheme.    Eachweek,Westfallwouldreceiveacheckforhisbasepay,regardlessofthecommissions p thathehadgenerated.Inaddition,ifhiscommissionsexceededhisbasepay,hewouldreceivean ` additionalcheckforthecommissions.If,ontheotherhand,thecommissionsgeneratedbyhimfell P belowtheamountofhisbasecheck,thedifferencewouldberecorded._Westfall_Ԁwouldthenbe @ requiredtomakeup,bywayofnewcommissions,anyaccumulateddeficitplustheamountofthe 0 currentbaseamountduehimbeforehewouldbeentitledtoanothercommissioncheck.Hewould  p receivehisbasepayregardlessoftheamountofhiscommissions. `   Approximatelysixmonthsafter_Westfall_Ԁwenttoworkforthecompany,_BSG_ԀaskedWestfall @ tosignanoncompetition/nondisclosureagreement.Westfallmadeseveralchangestothe 0 documentprofferedtohimbythecompanyandreturnedittoBSG.Westfalltestifiedattrialthat   JohnFanning,thenthechairmanof_Uniforce_,theownerof_BSG_,informedWestfallthatthe ! modificationswerenotacceptable.Theagreement,signedonlyby_Westfall_,wasapparentlyplaced "  inWestfallsemploymentfile.When_Westfall_Ԁsubmitteditto_BSG_,heaffixedthewords with #! notationsasamendedadjacenttohissignature. $"   InJanuary,1996,BSGinformedWestfallthatallsalespersonnelwouldberesponsiblefor p&!$  onequarterofthelossintheeventacustomersaccountresultedina writeoff.Inresponse, `'"% _Westfall_Ԁtenderedhisresignation,butadvisedthathewouldworkouta30daynotice.Adayortwo P(#& afterWestfalltenderedhisresignation,hereturnedtoworktoserveouthisnotice.Hebeganwhat @)$' hereferredtoas weeklymaintenanceinBSGsconstantlychangingcustomerdatabases.When 0*%( Westfallreturnedfromlunchthatday,hisofficewaslockedandthecomputerkeyboardwas  +p&) missing.Hissupervisorsuggestedthathenotserveouthisnoticeandthenhelpedhimcarryhis ,`'* belongingstohiscar.Atthecar,Westfallgaveabackuptapeandadiskcontainingcustomer  informationtohissupervisor.Whenhereturnedafewweekslatertopickuphischeck,hewas  askedseveralquestionsrelatingtothecustomerdatabases.Westfallinitiallyagreedtoallow  representativesof_BSG_Ԁtoaccompanyhimtohishousetocheckhispersonalhomecomputerfor  BSGcustomerinformation,butrefusedwhen_BSG_Ԁdeclined_Westfall_srequesttorunanerrandfirst. p   Apparently,WestfallssupervisorsentamemotoFanningdetailingwhy_Westfall_Ԁwastold P  nottofinishservingouthisnotice.Thesupervisorwasdeposed,andportionsofhisdepositionwere @  readintoevidenceattrial,butthememowasnevermadeanexhibittothedeposition,andthetrial 0  courtrefusedtoacceptitintoevidencewhenitwasofferedbythedefendantinconnectionwithits  p  counterclaim. `    Subsequenttohisresignation,Westfallwenttoworkforacompanythatisarguablyin @  competitionwith_BSG_. 0    Westfallbroughtsuitagainst_BSG_Ԁseekingpaymentofhiscommissionsforthetwoyears  followinghisresignation.BSGcounterclaimedforbreachofthenoncompetition/nondisclosure  agreement.    Theevidenceattrialshowedthathad_Westfall_Ԁremainedintheemploymentof_BSG_,hispre  terminationeffortswouldhaveresultedincommissionsof$33,692.60forthefirstyearfollowing p hisresignationandcommissionsof$18,633.18forthesecondyear. `   Atabenchtrial,thecourtbelow(1)foundWestfallsbasepaytobea drawagainst @ commissionswhich wereearnedwhentheclientwassignedup;(2)awardedWestfallajudgment 0 intheamountof$52,325.78;(3)dismissedBSGscounterclaim,findingthatthenon  p competition/nondisclosureagreement wasanofferthatwasrejectedandacounterofferwhich ` BSGdidnotaccept;and(4)thattherewas noproofthatthereisanyinformationmissingfromthe P databaseorthat[Westfall]wastheonewhowrongfullydeletedanyinformation. @   BSGappeals,arguingthatthetrialcourt(1)erredinawardingWestfallpostresignation   commissions;(2)erredinfindingthatthenoncompetition/nondisclosureagreementwasnever ! agreedto;and(3)erredinexcluding_BSG_smemorelatingtoitsreasonfornotallowingWestfall "  toworkouta30daynotice. #!   II. % # -  Inthisnonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecord,withapresumptionof `'"% correctnessastothetrialcourtsfactualdeterminations,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainst P(#& them.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d); Wrightv.CityofKnoxville ,898S.W.2d177,181(Tenn.1995); @)$'  UnionCarbideCorp.v._Huddleston_ ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusions 0*%(  oflaw,however,arerevieweddenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness. Campbellv.Florida  +p&) SteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996); Presleyv.Bennett ,860S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.  1993).     III.  v1  A. `  1  BSGfirstarguesthatthetrialcourterredinawardingWestfallpostresignationcommissions. @  Webelieveapplicablecontractlawsupportsthetrialcourtsjudgment. 0    Thegoalofcontractinterpretationistoascertaintheintentofthepartiesaccordingtothe `  usual,natural,andordinarymeaningofthewordsusedbytheparties. _Guiliano_Ԁv._Cleo_,Inc. ,995 P  S.W.2d88,95(Tenn.1999).   Theinterpretationplaceduponacontractbythepartiesthereto,as @  shownbytheiracts,willbeadoptedbythecourt. _Hamblen_ԀCountyv.Cityof_Morristown_ ,656 0  S.W.2d331,335(Tenn.1983).Interpretationofacontract,beingamatteroflaw,issubjecttoa   denovoreviewonappealwithnopresumptionofcorrectness. _Guiliano_ ,995S.W.2dat95.    Thepartiesargumentsconcerningthepaymentofpostemploymentcommissionsreston  theirrespectiveandcompetingcharacterizationsofWestfallsbasepay.BSGassertsthatWestfalls  basepayof$36,000was salary,whileWestfallcontendsthathisbasepaywasan advance,or   draw,againstcommissions.Becauseofthewaythepartiesoperatedundertheiragreement,we p findthathisbasepaywasadrawagainstcommissions. `   TheagreementreferstoWestfallsbasepayatoneplaceinthedocumentas @  salary/commissionandattwootherplacesasa base/draw.Thatbeingsaid,wefindandhold 0 thatthepartiestreatedWestfallsbasepaynotassalary,butasadraworadvanceagainst  p commissions.Underclearprecedent,see _Hamblen_ԀCounty ,656S.W.2dat335,weadoptthe ` partiesinterpretationofthenatureof_Westfall_sbasepayasevidenced bytheiracts. Id .Westfall P testifiedthathereceivedacheckforhisbasepayeachweek.Ifhiscommissionsexceededthe @ amountofhisbasepay,hewouldreceiveanadditionalcheckforhiscommissions.If,however,his 0 commissionsfellbelowhisbasepay,adeficitwouldberecordedandcarriedforwardtothenextpay   period.ThoughWestfallwouldreceiveanothercheckforhisbasepaythenextpayperiod,hewould ! notqualifyforacommissioncheckunlessanduntilhemadeupthecumulativedeficit. "  Significantly,_BSG_scontrollertestifiedtothesamecompensationscheme.Wethereforefindthat #! Westfallsbasepaywasnotasalary,butratheranadvanceagainstcommissions. $"   Withrespecttothemorespecificquestionofwhetherthetrialcourterredinawarding p&!$ Westfallpostemploymentcommissions,wefindthatthisquestioniscontrolledbythelanguageof `'"% theagreementandourdecisionin Winklerv._Fleetline_ԀProducts,Inc. ,859S.W.2d340(Tenn.Ct. P(#& App.1993).In Winkler ,theplaintiffsuedhisformeremployertorecoverposttermination @)$' commissions. Id .at34041.Thepartieshadorallyagreedthattheplaintiffwouldprocure 0*%( customersforthedefendantandthatthedefendantwouldpay,afterthecustomerspaidthe  +p&) defendant,a10%commissiontotheplaintiffonworkthedefendantperformedforthesecustomers. ,`'*  Id .at341.Thepartiesoperatedunderthisarrangementforapproximatelyayearandahalf,until  thedefendantterminatedtheplaintiff. Id .Therecordreflectedthatthedefendantsmotivationfor  terminatingtheagreementwasthatitwassatisfiedwiththeamountofbusinessithadandwithits  abilitytoservicetheexistingaccounts,andtherefore, sawnoreasontocontinuetopayout10%  commissiononaregularbasistoplaintiff. Id .at343.Weawardedtheplaintiffcommissionson p ordersplacedafterhisterminationbycustomersheprocuredforthedefendantpriortohis `  termination. Id . P    Westfall,liketheplaintiffin Winkler ,wastoreceivehiscommissionsafterthecustomers 0  heprocuredforBSGpaidhisemployer.NowheredoestheagreementrelieveBSGofitsobligation  p  topayWestfallthesecommissionsuponWestfallsresignation.Wefindandholdthat,becausethere `  wasnoexplicitorimplicitagreementtothecontrary,BSGisobligatedtopayWestfallhispost P  employmentcommissionspursuanttotheunconditionallystatedlanguageofthecontract. Winkler  @  supportsthisresult. 0  *  ! !X!X XXX   ?( 4 <DL!?*G    BSGattemptstodistinguish Winkler ,assertingthatitsrationalethatanemployershould  notbeallowed,inbadfaith,toobtainforitselfthefullbenefitsofasalespersonslaborwithout  payingthelatterscommissionsisnotapplicabletoacasewhere,ashere,anemployeevoluntarily  resigns.Insupportofthisargument,BSGcitesusto PacesetterProperties,Inc.v._Hardaway_ ,635  S.W.2d382(Tenn.Ct.App.1981),acaseinwhich,accordingtoBSGsargument,theplaintiffs  resignationoperatedtodenyhimentitlementtopostemploymentcommissions. Pacesetter , p however,didnotinvolvethequestionofwhetherthepartieshadanagreementastothepaymentof ` postemploymentcommissions.Rather,thequestionatissueinthatcasewaswhethertheplaintiff P wastheprocuringcauseofthetransactionwhichwasconsummatedafterhisresignation. Id .at385. @ Wefoundforthedefendant,notbecausetheplaintiffsemploymentendedduetoresignationrather 0 thantermination,butbecausethetransactionforwhichtheplaintiffclaimedentitlementtoa  p commissionwasduetonew,independentnegotiationsratherthantheresultoftheplaintiffsefforts. ` See id .at389.*G{H݌ P Ќ   XXX XXX     Nowhereinthepartiesagreementisthereanyindicationthatresignationinvalidatesthe 0 defendantsobligationtopaycommissions,anobligationwhich,aswehavepreviouslypointedout,   isstatedinunconditionaltermsinthewritingbeforeus.TheagreementsayssimplythatWestfall ! istobepaidcommissionsfortwoyearsoncustomersheprocuredforBSG.Itdoesnotprovidethat "  BSGsobligationtopaythesecommissionstoWestfallceasestoexistuponWestfallstermination, #! voluntaryorotherwise.Westfallsjobwasto signupcustomers,i.e.,persuadethemtoenterinto $" acontractualrelationshipwithBSG.Thathereceivedhiscommissionsovertimedoesnotchange % # thefactthattheywereearnedatthetimeoftheexecutionofthecustomerBSGcontract.Because p&!$ theywerealreadyearned,itisimmaterialundertheagreementwhether_Westfall_semploymentwas `'"% terminatedathisinitiationoratBSGs. P(#&   BSGnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinawardingpostemploymentcommissionsto 0*%(  WestfallbecauseWestfall waspaidabasesalaryregardlessofwhathegeneratedinsales,and  +p&) becausecommissionswhichhemighthaveearnedineachofthetwoyearsheclaims[BSG]owes  himfellbelowhisbasesalarythresholdof[$36,000]ayear.     Thisargument,again,improperlycharacterizesWestfallsbasepayassalary.Becausewe  havefoundthatitisproperlycharacterizedasanadvanceagainstcommissions,theargumentmust p fail.Uponresigning,Westfallgaveuphisentitlementtoaweeklypaycheck.Expandingonthis `  thought,theproofisclearthathewasnolongerentitledtoaregularpaycheckofaguaranteed P  amountwiththeriskofhiscommissionsfallingbelowhisbasepaybeingon_BSG_.Hisresignation @  didnot,however,deprivehimofthatwhichhehadalreadyearned,i.e.,hisactualcommissions. 0    Fortheforegoingreasons,wefindandholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinawardingpost `  employmentcommissionstoWestfall. P    B. 0  fY  BSGnextarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatthenoncompetition/nondisclosure  agreementwasnottheagreementoftheparties.Morespecifically,itarguesthatitsplacementof  themodifiedagreementintoWestfallsemploymentfile,coupledwithitsretentionofWestfallas  anemployee,constitutedanacceptanceof_Westfall_scounteroffer.    Undergeneralprinciplesofcontractlaw,acontractmustresultfromameetingoftheminds p ofthepartiesinmutualassenttotheterms. Sweetenv.TradeEnvelopes,Inc. ,938S.W.2d383, ` 386(Tenn.1996)(internalquotationsomitted).Acceptanceofanoffermustbeexactlyand P preciselyinaccordwiththetermsoftheoffer. Rayv.Thomas ,232S.W.2d32,35(Tenn.1950). @ Ifan_offeree_Ԁassentstoanoffer,butonlywithconditionsorwithvariedterms,thereisnoacceptance, 0 butrathertheexpressionconstitutesarejectionoftheoriginalofferandinitiationofanewoffer.  p See _Tullahoma_ԀConcretePipeCo.v._T.E._ԀGillespieConstr.Co. ,405S.W.2d657,665(Tenn.Ct. ` App.1966)( Whereapersonofferstodoadefinitething,andanotheracceptsconditionallyor P introducesanewtermintotheacceptance,hisansweriseitheramereexpressionofwillingnessto @ treat,oritisacounterproposal,andinneithercaseisthereanagreement.)(quoting CantonCotton 0 _Nills_Ԁv.BowmanOverallCo. ,149Tenn.18,31,257_S.W._Ԁ398,402(1924)).Moreover,silenceor   inactiongenerallydoesnotconstituteacceptanceofanoffer,unlessthecircumstancesindicatethat ! suchaninferenceofassentiswarranted. Smithv.Murray ,311S.W.2d591,595(Tenn.1958). "    Wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinfindingthenoncompetition/nondisclosure $" agreementtobeunenforceable.BSGstenderofthetypewrittenagreementto_Westfall_Ԁconstituted % # anoffer.Westfall,bymodifyingtheagreement,rejectedtheinitialofferandmadeacounteroffer. p&!$ Westfalltestifiedattrialthathewastoldthatthemodificationswereunacceptable.Weareofthe `'"% opinionthatthecircumstanceswerenotsuchthatBSGssilenceandinactioncreatesareasonable P(#& inferenceofassent,andwethereforeholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinfindingthe agreement @)$' unenforceable. 0*%(    +p&)   C.  e  Finally,BSGarguesthatthetrialcourterredinexcludingfromevidencethememorelating  toeventsallegedlyoccurringimmediatelyafterWestfallsresignation.ThisissuerelatestoBSGs  counterclaimallegingthatWestfallbreachedthenoncompetition/nondisclosureagreement. p Becausewehavefoundthatthereisnosuchagreement,therecanbenobreach,andthisissueis `  thereforerenderedmoot. P    IV. 0  h  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforenforcementofthe `  trialcourtsjudgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw. P  Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant. @  #XX 3 #X X   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE