IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
FILED
August 12, 1998
WILLIAMSON COUNTY BROADCASTING )
COMPANY, INC., and WILLIAM B. ORMES, ) Cecil W. Crowson
) Appellate Court Clerk
Plaintiffs/Appellants, )
) Appeal No.
VS. ) 01-A-01-9709-CH-00480
)
INTERMEDIA PARTNERS, a California ) Davidson Chancery
limited partnership; INTERMEDIA CAPITAL ) No. 92-2930-II
MANAGEMENT; a general partner of )
InterMedia Partners; LEO J. HINDERY, JR., )
Managing General Partner and Chief )
Executive Officer of InterMedia Capital )
Management; ROBIN CABLE SYSTEMS; )
ROBIN MEDIA GROUP, INC.; FIRST )
CABLEVISION, INC.; ROBIN CABLE )
SYSTEMS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; )
TENNESSEE VALLEY CABLEVISION, )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
APPEALED FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY
AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
THE HONORABLE CAROL L. MCCOY, CHANCELLOR
ALFRED H. KNIGHT
ALAN D. JOHNSON
215 Second Avenue, North
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants
STEPHEN K. RUSH
1209 16th Avenue South
Nashville, Tennessee 37212
Kathryn A. Stephenson
414 Union Street
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART;
AND REMANDED
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR:
TODD, P.J., M.S.
CAIN, J.
OPINION
In this second appeal involving a written agreement, we are asked to
review the chancellor’s findings concerning the scope of the agreement, the proof of
damages, and whether the agreement should be specifically performed. We reverse
the order of specific performance but affirm in all other respects.
I.
In 1979, William Ormes, the owner of radio station WAGG in Franklin,
signed a letter agreement with Matrix Enterprises, Inc. whereby Mr. Ormes was to be
compensated for his efforts in helping Matrix secure a cable television franchise in
Franklin, Brentwood, and Williamson County. In addition to other inducements, the
agreement contained the following paragraph:
6. If the corporation is successful in obtaining the
Franchise in the City of Franklin, Tennessee, you, William
R. Ormes, or your designee (subject to the provisions
contained herein), will receive twenty (20) percent of the
common or preferred stock of the corporation to which the
Franchise is issued, said stock to be free and clear of all
liens, charges and other encumbrances, except as
otherwise provided herein. In addition, you are to be the
exclusive director of local programming, both audio and
video, and the exclusive sales agent for the sale of
advertising and broadcasting time on the local channels.
The agreement did not contain a fixed term, and, in the prior action, the
chancellor granted summary judgment to Intermedia (Matrix’s successor), holding that
the agreement was terminable at will. We reversed and remanded for a trial on “all
issues.”
On remand, the chancellor held that paragraph 6 of the agreement gave
Mr. Ormes the exclusive right to place advertising on the local origination channel
-2-
only; that these rights were unique and should be specifically enforced; and that Mr.
Ormes had not proved the damages he had already suffered.
II.
The Scope of the Agreement
a. All Local Advertising?
Mr. Ormes contends on appeal that he has the exclusive right to sell all
local advertising -- whether it is for the local origination channels or whether it is local
advertising for insert on programs picked up from the satellite.
The interpretation of an unambiguous written agreement is a question
of law for the court, Hamblen County v. City of Morristown, 656 S.W.2d 331 (Tenn.
1983), and the court’s overriding purpose is to ascertain the intention of the parties.
Pearsall Motors, Inc. v. Regal Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 521 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn. 1975).
The court should consider the entire contract, Cocke Co. Bd. of Highway
Commissioners v Newport Utilities Bd., 690 S.W.2d 231 (Tenn. 1985), and the
“situation involving the parties, the nature of the business in which they are engaged
and the subject matter to which the contract relates.” Stovall v. Dattel, 619 S.W.2d
125 at 127 (Tenn. App. 1981).
The parties agree that in 1979 when the agreement was signed,
advertising inserts were not in the contemplation of the parties. Mr. Ormes testified
that he was unaware in 1979 of any technology that would allow local advertising
inserts. Therefore, we think the circumstances existing at the time the parties
executed the agreement supports the chancellor’s interpretation. See Hamblen Co.
v. City of Morristown, 656 S.W.2d 331 (Tenn. 1983).
Mr. Ormes argues, however, that in reading the agreement as a whole
it is clear that the parties divided up the revenues along the lines of their interests: he
-3-
was interested in selling advertising and Matrix was interested in the revenues to be
derived from selling subscriptions to the cable service.
We cannot agree. The only reference in the agreement to advertising
is paragraph 6. The other parts of the agreement make it clear that the franchise was
to belong to the company to be formed by Matrix. Matrix was to bear all costs and to
make all decisions relative to the type of organization they were creating, its financial
structure, and its method of operation. Mr. Ormes was to get twenty percent of the
company and the right to be the exclusive sales agent for advertising and
broadcasting time on the local channels
Mr. Ormes also argues that he in fact sold advertising on the satellite
channels for several years and that this “practical construction” of the agreement
supports his version of it. The construction placed on an agreement by the parties is
a valuable construction tool where the agreement is ambiguous. Garner v. American
Home Assurance Co., 460 S.W.2d 358 (Tenn. App. 1969). But the rule loses most
of its force where the parties are not aware of the true facts. Yowell v. Union Central
Life Ins. Co., 141 Tenn. 70 (1918). Even if we thought the term “local” was
ambiguous, the proof in the record does not show when the other parties became
aware that Mr. Ormes was selling advertising for insertion on the satellite feed.
Finally, Mr. Ormes argues that we decided in the former appeal that he
had the exclusive right to sell local advertising, including the satellite inserts. The only
issue decided by the trial court on the former appeal was that the agreement was
terminable at will. Since the jurisdiction of this court is appellate only, see Tenn. Code
Ann. § 16-4-108, that is the only issue that was before us. See Irvin v. Binkley, 577
S.W.2d 677 (Tenn. App. 1978). Therefore, when we remanded the case for a trial on
“all issues,” the retrial must include an interpretation of Mr. Ormes’ rights under the
agreement.
-4-
b. The Term
In our former opinion we said (in deciding that the agreement was not
terminable at will):
[I]t was the intent of the parties that Mr. Ormes would
receive vested property rights and that the duration of the
agreement would be coextensive with the length of the
cable system franchise used by Matrix and its successors.
That language would ordinarily be conclusive on the question of the term
covered by the agreement. But in remanding the case for trial on “all issues,” we think
the question was left open.
After hearing the proof, the trial judge held that, indeed, Mr. Ormes’
rights under the agreement would last as long as the original franchisee or its
successors held the franchise. We are satisfied that the holding was correct. There
is nothing in the proof developed on remand to suggest that we erred in our original
view that Mr. Ormes would enjoy the fruits of his labor for the duration of the franchise
he helped secure.
c. Transferability
The trial judge held that the rights given Mr. Ormes by the agreement
were personal to him and could not be assigned, transferred, or inherited. We think
the court erred in drawing this conclusion.
Contract rights ordinarily survive the death of one of the parties unless
the contract is one of a personal nature. See 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 547. In
addition, in this case the contract bound the parties, “their heirs and assigns.” Such
language surely indicates an intent that the contract rights will survive the death of one
of the parties, and it is a strong indication that the contract rights are assignable. See
-5-
Teague v. Sowder, 121 Tenn. 132 (Tenn. 1908). But even in the absence of such
language, contract rights are generally assignable unless the assignment would
materially affect the obligor’s rights or burdens. Petry v. Cosmopolitan Spa Intern.,
Inc., 641 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. App. 1982)(applying the Restatement (Second) of
Contracts § 317(2) (1981).
There is nothing in the agreement restricting its assignment, and we do
not think it involves personal rights that fall outside the general rules of assignment
or survivability.
III.
Specific Performance
Specific performance is an equitable remedy. Gibson v. Gilla, 321
S.W.2d 855 (Tenn. App. 1959). It is available only when the remedy at law is
inadequate. GRW Enterprises, Inc. v. Davis, 797 S.W.2d 606 (Tenn. App. 1990).
When the injured party can be fully and adequately compensated with damages, the
courts will not grant specific performance. Shuptrine v. Quinn, 597 S.W.2d 728
(Tenn. 19179). The inability to prove one’s damages may make the damages remedy
inadequate. Eastern Rolling Mill Co. v. Michlovitz, 157 Md. 51, 145 A. 378 (Md. App.
1929)(an agreement to sell all the defendant’s scrap metal for five years at a certain
fluctuating price.)
We think the plaintiff’s remedy at law in this case is adequate. There is
nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Ormes cannot be made whole by an award
of damages. After all, this whole dispute is about money, and damages for the breach
of a personal contract is generally an adequate remedy. Sprunt v. Bd. of Trustees of
University of Tennessee, 443 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn. 1969). It is true that the inability to
prove one’s damages may make the damage remedy inadequate. See Eastern
Rolling Mills Co. v. Michlovitz, 157 Md. 51, 145 A. 378 (Md. App. 1929). In that case
-6-
the seller agreed to furnish all of its output of two kinds of scrap metal for a period of
five years. The price was to be adjusted each quarter according to the prices quoted
in a trade journal. Under those circumstances, the damages suffered by the plaintiff
would be a pure guess. Therefore, the remedy was inadequate. The record in this
case does not suggest that kind of difficulty in proving the plaintiff’s damages.
IV.
Finally, Mr. Ormes insists that his proof of damages that had already
accrued was adequate and that the burden shifted to the defendants to disprove the
amount. We disagree. The proof offered at the hearing attempted to show the
damages for the loss of all advertising -- on the local channel as well as on the
satellite feed. Since the chancellor found that Mr. Ormes was only entitled to sell
advertising for the local channel, the proof was largely irrelevant. The defendants
cannot be required to refute proof that supports a theory rejected by the trial judge.
Mr. Ormes did get into the record a late-filed offer of proof attempting
to segregate out the revenue attributable to the rights found by the chancellor. On
appeal, however, he does not insist that he should be awarded damages based on
his offer of proof. Therefore there was not any competent evidence on which to base
an award of damages up to the time of trial. Since we have reversed the specific
performance judgment, we remand the cause for further proceedings as to the
damages that may be recovered for the loss of earnings from the date of the trial
forward.
The judgment of the court below awarding Mr. Ormes specific
performance of his contract is reversed. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed
and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Tax the costs on appeal to the parties equally.
-7-
____________________________
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_______________________________
HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE
MIDDLE SECTION
_____________________________
WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE
-8-
Williamson County BroadcastIng Co. v. InterMedia Partners
Combined Opinion