ÿWPC> '´x»§h¦¸¦¿w~ÿÜ;S³² ,í©ZTõ§òâwBx¸»y¤oϺóAª\›ykÕöO‡·5}Lä=)ìþÂÓ`¿§¢H{:¨smìÅ0 SC„ÿÇ„ps én§ íð%Ö-ªX…á5_¥}0;³¨Æ’CŽšPÈèýÅ^mS¶•Ëÿ3ç»…FãÈ*Ã!©Ì™å|o3‰U _[u" ´^³WÐ"½kÖ²7ýùÁˆ›DUŽØUžm&O“/Ìp»Åä§3-K¡êàÙyï·M °HgH ›zÜšWÀ>žû {‹ÏëIM"$Mßúid©À»â)ø£ÍÂÿ6‚ØÕ¢¹¨NÅáä&d»ë¹è„îjâ4GÚ‹jðmôdºq'1taôòÍãòœp?é"¦í̺vÏ_»A¬ö±dÊŠ![é(á4v˜¨·¦¿¿|Î-d®°¨ÑÎj’zÊVßô5—b L‹Ó uîëÌ×;¬ÇŒü–“ÿš;‹ò¢Ù4·ŠŒÅ:Z¶·)ƃš’B2Tºêrá H2w·øº2©ã¼ò± | ,÷ÇQ¥|º Ly,§6èçS|ôMÊb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U0N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ U N™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 0DÿNCElbEÎßÐn¯5%ZZZÁrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrb333333333333333333333333333333333333 0ë;;;; B&& 0¤C D3ç D- 0KGG AS’Æå 0¤« 0DO A«“˜HP LaserJet 4250 PCL 6ÈÈÈÈ0»mœ3  (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=€M3ê:i¢×+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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRþ¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîIò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€letter€is€signed€by€two€principals€of€LDI,€Dwight€E.€Ô_ÔKiserÔ_Ô€and€David€W.€Ô_ÔDedererÔ_Ô.€ bÝ ƒRþ¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîIò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Answer€and€Counterclaim€were€filed€by€Dukes€&€Co.€Ô_ÔandÔ_Ô€Spencer€Hall,€LLC.,€Ô_ÔbutÔ_Ô€the€contract€in€questionÐ ° Ðwas€only€between€Dukes€&€Co.€and€LDI. ÕÝ ƒRþ¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîIò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBut€for€the€claim€that€Spencer€Hall,€LLC,€is€the€third€party€beneficiary€of€the€contract€between€LDI€and€Dukes,Ð ° Ðthe€claims€presented€by€the€two€entities€for€damages€sustained€as€a€result€of€LDI€are€indistinguishable.€€Accordingly,€weÐ tÄ Ðshall€discuss€the€claims€as€one€as€did€the€appellants€in€their€brief. dÝ ƒRþ¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîIò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€stress€that€attribution€of€the€defects€to€LDI€is€simply€Dukes€&€Co.ððs€allegation.€€Both€parties€seem€to€agreeÐ ° Ðthat€these€problems€were€present,€but€the€parties€dispute€who€is€responsible€for€the€problems.  +Ý ƒRþ¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîIò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€issue€was€framed€with€reference€to€Spencer€Hall,€LLC,€as€the€trial€court€had€dismissed€the€claim€of€DukesÐ ° Ð&€Co.€as€barred€by€accord€and€satisfaction. Ý ƒRþ¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîIò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSean€DeCoster,€an€expert€witness,€testified€that€the€storm€pipe€should€always€be€laid€prior€to€the€laying€theÐ ° Ðsewer€lateral. ·Ý ƒRþ¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîIò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€a€letter€from€Dukes€to€the€Chair€of€the€Franklin€Planning€Commission€in€April€2002,€Dukes€admitted€it€wasÐ ° Ðexperiencing€financial€difficulties€due€to€a€number€of€reasons€including€problems€with€its€contractor,€MRM,€and€financialÐ tÄ Ðdisputes€and€suits€with€other€contractors.- ù-(|G2þ¨$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^Á»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôîIò»»Ô d(|3Ç$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^Á»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^Á»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^Á»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼^Á»»»ÔÑ8€½XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îE0^ÁÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼^Á»îîE0 #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓFebruary€10,€2005€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X½X»¼^ÁÔÌò òÔ#†¼^Á»XX½ö#ÔLDI€DESIGN,€LLC,€òòóóv.€GLENN€G.€DUKES,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X½X»¼^ÁÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€27028€€€€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„02905„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€28,€Ô_Ô2005Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€arises€from€a€multi„faceted€business€dispute.€€LDI€Design,€LLC,€an€engineering€firm,Ð ŒÜ  ÐÔ‡ X½XXX½Ôwas€engaged€by€Dukes€&€Co.,€a€real€estate€developer,€to€design€plans€for€Spencer€Hall,€a€plannedÐ xÈ  Ðsubdivision€in€Franklin,€Tennessee.€€LDI€provided€its€engineering€services,€however,€Dukes€failedÐ d´ Ðto€fulfill€its€financial€obligation€to€LDI.€€The€parties€negotiated€a€new€agreement€in€April€1999Ð P  Ðcompromising€a€claim€for€damages€by€Dukes€in€consideration€of€a€reduced€fee€for€LDIððs€services.€Ð <Œ ÐAfter€Dukes€failed€to€honor€the€new€agreement,Ô#†X½XX X½6#Ô€LDI€filed€this€action.€€Dukes€filed€an€answer€denyingÐ (x Ðliability€and€filed€a€counter€complaint€for€damages€due€to€deficiencies€in€the€plans€prepared€by€LDI.€Ð d ÐSpencer€Hall,€LLC,€owner€of€the€Spencer€Hall€subdivision,€while€not€a€party€to€the€contract,€joinedÐ P Ðin€the€counter€complaint€claiming€to€be€a€co„developer€of€the€project€and€the€third„party€beneficiaryÐ ì< Ðof€the€contract€between€LDI€and€Dukes.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€counterclaim€finding€theÐ Ø( Ðrenegotiated€agreement€between€LDI€and€Dukes€constituted€an€accord€and€satisfaction€that€barredÐ Ä ÐDukeððs€claims,€and€the€evidence€insufficient€to€prove€any€claim€for€damages€against€LDI.€€AlthoughÐ ° Ðwe€find€the€new€agreement€did€not€bar€Dukesðð€claim,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€theÐ œì Ðevidence€failed€to€prove€any€claim€for€damages€against€LDI.€€We,€therefore,€affirm€the€dismissal€ofÐ ˆØ Ðall€claims€against€LDI.Ô#†¼^Á»XX½r#ÔÔ‡X½X»¼^ÁÔÐ tÄ ÐÔ#†¼^Á»XX½Å #ÔÔ‡X½X»¼^ÁÔÌò òà@ääìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtˆÐ L œ Ðà@ƒ ƒ ìàReversed€in€Part€and€Affirmed€in€Partó óˆÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòÔ#†¼^Á»àX½ #ÔÔ‡X½X.¼^ÁÔFrank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€P.J.,Ð #`" ÐM.S.,óó€and€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ü#L# ÐÌK.€Harlan€Dodson,€IIIÔ#†¼^Á»XX½# #ÔÔ‡X½X»¼^ÁÔ€and€Michael€B.€Bressman,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Glenn€G.Ð Ô%$!% ÐDukes,€Dukes€&€Co.,€and€Spencer€Hall,€LLC.Ð À&"& ÐÔ#†¼^Á»XX½=#ÔÔ‡X½X»¼^ÁÔÌHelen€F.€Bean€and€Mark€A.€Baugh,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€LDI€Design,€LLC.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÔ#†¼^Á»XX½#ÔÔ‡X½X»¼^ÁÔò òÌà@66'ìàOPINIONó óÔ#†¼^Á»XX½Ð#ԈРp*À%* ÐÔ€X½X»¼^ÁÔÌà  àDukes€&€Co.€entered€into€a€contract€with€LDI€Design,€LLC,€in€July€of€1997,€whereby€LDI,Ð H,˜', Ðan€engineering€firm,€agreed€to€perform€land€planning€services,€landscape€architecture,€and€civilÐ 4-„(-ý Ðengineering€for€six€of€twelve€sections€of€a€thirty„two€acre,€seventy„five€lot€residential€developmentÐ ° Ðknown€as€Spencer€Hall.€€Dukes€was€identified€in€the€contract€as€the€ð ðClient.ðð€€Spencer€Hall,€LLC,Ð œì Ðowner€of€the€property€known€as€Spencer€Hall€that€is€the€subject€of€this€litigation,€was€not€a€party€toÐ ˆØ Ðthe€contract.€€Nevertheless,€Spencer€Hall,€LLC,€claims€it€was€a€co„developer€of€the€project€and€aÐ tÄ Ðthird„party€beneficiary€of€the€contract€between€LDI€and€Dukes.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€project€was€divided€into€twelve€sections.€€LDI€was€engaged€to€work€on€Sections€SevenÐ 8 ˆ Ðthrough€Twelve.€€During€the€construction€of€Section€Nine,€Dukes€complained€that€it€had€encounteredÐ $ t Ðproblems€due€to€LDIððs€design.€€Following€a€series€of€discussions,€the€problems€were€rectified€and,Ð  ` Ðin€April€of€1999€Dukes€and€LDI€entered€into€an€agreement€whereby€Dukes€settled€its€claims€againstÐ ü L  ÐLDI€in€consideration€for€which€LDI€agreed€to€accept€a€reduced€fee€for€its€services€on€the€project.€Ð è 8  ÐDukes€was€to€pay€the€balance€owing€on€the€reduced€fee€in€installments,€however,€it€failed€to€honorÐ Ô$  Ðthe€agreement.€€As€a€consequence,€on€October€22,€1999,€LDI€submitted€a€letter€demanding€payment,Ð À  Ðto€which€Dukes€responded€with€one€payment€of€$1,000.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€October€correspondence€and€the€$1,000€payment€by€Dukes,€the€contractorÐ „Ô  Ðengaged€by€Dukes,€MRM€construction€company,€commenced€construction€on€Sections€Eleven€andÐ pÀ ÐTwelve€of€Spencer€Hall.€€Following€the€commencement€of€construction,€Dukes€contended€itÐ \¬ Ðencountered€two€major€flaws€in€LDIððs€engineering€plans€for€Section€Twelve.€€These€alleged€flawsÐ H˜ Ðincluded€sewer€pipes€that€Dukes€alleged€improperly€intersected€with€a€storm€drainage€pipe,€andÐ 4„ Ðproblems€with€a€drainage€ditch€that€contributed€to€flooding€of€the€neighboring€ClairmontÐ  p Ðsubdivision.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Having€severed€ties€with€LDI,€Dukes€hired€another€engineer,€DBS€and€AssociatesÐ  \ Ð(hereinafter€DBS),€to€prepare€revised€plans€for€Section€Twelve.€€Following€a€series€of€delays€andÐ øH Ðcessation€of€construction,€the€reasons€for€which€are€hotly€disputed,€the€City€of€Franklin€approved€theÐ ä4 Ðplans€prepared€by€DBS,€and€construction€of€the€Spencer€Hall€project€was€completed.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€the€interim,€LDI€filed€this€action€to€recover€the€outstanding€balance€owed€for€its€services.€Ð ¨ø ÐDukes€answered€the€complaint,€denying€liability,€and€filed€a€counterclaim,€along€with€Spencer€Hall,Ð ”ä ÐLLC,€contending€LDI€was€responsible€for€damages€resulting€from€a€faulty€design.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€LDI€answeredÐ €Ð Ðthe€counterclaim€denying€liability€generally€and€asserting€the€affirmative€defense€of€accord€andÐ l¼ Ðsatisfaction€based€on€the€April€1999€agreement.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€an€accord€and€satisfaction€between€LDI€and€Dukes€barred€DukesððÐ 0"€  Ðclaims.€€The€trial€court€further€found€Spencer€Hall,€LLC,€failed€to€prove€any€claim€for€damages.€Ð #l! ÐDukes€and€Spencer€Hall,€LLC,€appeal€contending€the€April€1999€accord€was€limited€to€Section€NineÐ $X" Ðand€did€not€constitute€a€bar€to€claims€attributable€to€Section€Twelve,€thus€they€are€entitled€to€recoverÐ ô$D # Ðdamages€resulting€from€LDIððs€errors€and€omissions.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% ÐÓ  Óò òSòòtandard€of€Reviewó óóóÐ ° ÐÌÓŸ ÓÔ‡ X½XXX½Ôà  àThe€standard€of€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€is€òòde€novo€óóand€we€presume€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðfindings€of€fact€are€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Ô#†X½XX X½ï #ÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð tÄ Ð13(d);Ô‡ X½XXX½Ô€òòRawlings€v.€John€Hancock€Mut.€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€78€S.W.3d€291,€296€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€Ð `° ÐFor€the€evidence€to€preponderate€against€a€trial€courtððs€finding€of€fact,€it€must€support€anotherÐ L œ Ðfinding€of€fact€with€greater€convincing€effect.€€òòWalker€v.€Sidney€Gilreath€&€Assocs.óó,€40€S.W.3d€66,Ð 8 ˆ Ð71€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);€òòThe€Realty€Shop,€Inc.€v.€R.R.€Westminster€Holding,€Incóó.,€7€S.W.3d€581,Ð $ t Ð596€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Ô#†X½XX X½8"#ÔWhere€the€trial€court€does€not€make€findings€of€fact,€there€is€noÐ  ` Ðpresumption€of€correctness€and€we€ð ðmust€conduct€our€own€independent€review€of€the€record€toÐ ü L  Ðdetermine€where€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€lies.ðð€òòBrooks€v.€Brooksóó,€992€S.W.2d€403,€405Ð è 8  Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€Ô‡ X½XXX½ÔWe€also€give€great€weight€to€a€trial€courtððs€determinations€of€credibility€of€witnesses.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòEstate€of€Walton€v.€Youngóó,€950€S.W.2d€956,€959€(Tenn.€1997);€òòB€&€G€Constr.,€Inc.€v.€Polkóó,€37Ð À  ÐS.W.3d€462,€465€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€Ô#†X½XX X½Ï%#Ô€Issues€of€law€are€reviewed€òòde€novo€óówith€no€presumptionÐ ¬ü  Ðof€correctness.€òòNelson€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€8€S.W.3d€625,€628€(Tenn.€1999).òòóó€Ô‡ X½XXX½ÔÐ ˜è  ÐÓ  Óò òòòÌAccord€and€Satisfactionóóó óÐ pÀ ÐÔ#†X½XX X½Õ'#ÔÓ (ÓÌà  àThe€trial€court€dismissed€Dukesðð€claim€finding€an€accord€and€satisfaction€was€reached€whenÐ H˜ Ðthe€parties€settled€a€previous€claim€by€Dukes€that€it€had€incurred€damages€due€to€design€errors€byÐ 4„ ÐLDI.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€found€the€parties€entered€into€an€agreement€in€April€of€1999Ð  p Ðwhereby€LDI€agreed€to€accept€and€Dukes€agreed€to€pay€the€reduced€fee€of€$11,186.53€in€satisfactionÐ  \ Ðof€the€services€LDI€had€provided€and€the€damages€Dukes€had€sustained€relative€to€Section€Nine€(alsoÐ øH Ðknown€as€Inverness)€of€Spencer€Hall.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àDukes€does€not€dispute€the€fact€the€parties€entered€into€an€accord€concerning€damages€itÐ ¼  Ðsustained€during€the€construction€of€Section€Nine€and€the€fee€to€which€LDI€was€entitled.€€Dukes,Ð ¨ø Ðhowever,€does€dispute€the€contention€the€April€1999€accord€bars€additional€claims€that€may€ariseÐ ”ä Ðthereafter.€€It€insists€the€April€1999€accord€was€limited€to€the€damages€it€sustained€in€the€constructionÐ €Ð Ðof€Section€Nine€and€the€fees€it€owed€LDI€for€its€services,€nothing€more.€€LDI,€however,€insists€theÐ l¼ ÐApril€1999€accord€constituted€a€release€from€all€future€claims€of€any€kind€regarding€Dukes€and€theÐ X ¨ ÐSpencer€Hall€project.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAlthough€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€parties€reached€an€accord€in€AprilÐ #l! Ðof€1999;€we€have€concluded€the€1999€accord€was€not€a€global€accord€and€that€it€was€limited€to€theÐ $X" Ðdamages€addressed€relative€to€Section€Nine€and€the€fee€owing€to€LDI.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAccord€and€satisfaction€is€an€affirmative€defense.€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03.€€An€accord€is€anÐ Ì&"% Ðagreement€whereby€one€of€the€parties€ð ðundertakes€to€give€or€perform,€and€the€other€to€accept€inÐ ¸'#& Ðsatisfaction€of€a€claim,€.€.€.€something€other€than€or€different€from€what€he€is€or€considers€himselfÐ ¤(ô#' Ðentitled€to;€.€.€.ðð€òòPinney€v.€Tarpleyóó,€686€S.W.2d€574,€577€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984)€€(citingòò€Lytle€v.Ð )à$( ÐCloptonóó,€261€S.W.€664,€666€(Tenn.€1924)).€€The€thrust€of€the€defense€is€that€ð ðthe€parties€have€comeÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€another€agreement€in€substitution€of€the€one€upon€which€the€plaintiff€sues,€and€that€the€substitutedÐ h+¸&* Ðagreement€has€been€executed."€òòInland€Equipment€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Foundry€&€Mach.€Co.óó,€241Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€564,€565€(Tenn.€1951).€€Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà ` àTo€constitute€a€valid€accord€and€satisfaction€it€is€essential€that€à8@èÐ Ð àwhat€is€given€or€agreed€to€be€performed€shall€be€offered€as€a€satisfaction€and€extinction€of€theÐ tÄ Ðoriginal€demand;€that€the€debtor€shall€intend€it€as€a€satisfaction€of€such€obligation,€and€that€suchÐ `° Ðintention€shall€be€made€known€to€the€creditor€in€some€unmistakable€manner.€It€is€equally€essentialÐ L œ Ðthat€the€creditor€shall€have€accepted€it€with€the€intention€that€it€should€operate€as€a€satisfaction.€BothÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€giving€and€the€acceptance€in€satisfaction€are€essential€elements,€and€if€they€be€lacking€there€canÐ $ t Ðbe€no€accord€and€satisfaction.€The€intention€of€the€parties,€which€is€of€course€controlling,€must€beÐ  ` Ðdetermined€from€all€the€circumstances€attending€the€transaction.€Ð ü L  ÐÌòòLytle€v.€Cloptonóó,€261€S.W.€664,€667€(Tenn.€1924)€(quoting€1€C.J.S.€òòAccord€and€Satisfaction€óóðððð€1Ð Ô$  Ðand€16€(1914)).€€Although€accord€and€satisfaction€is€governed€by€the€law€of€contracts,€òò€R.J.€BettertonÐ À  ÐMgm't.€Servs.,€Inc.€v.€Whittemoreóó,€733€S.W.2d€880,€882€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987);€òòCole€v.€Hendersonóó,Ð ¬ü  Ð454€S.W.2d€374,€384€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1969),€whether€there€has€been€an€accord€and€satisfaction€isÐ ˜è  Ða€question€of€fact.€€òòLindsey€v.€Lindseyóó,€930€S.W.2d€553,€557€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòHelms€v.Ð „Ô  ÐWeaveróó,€770€S.W.2d€552,€554€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€party€asserting€the€defense€of€accord€and€satisfaction€has€the€burden€of€showing€by€aÐ H˜ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€parties€intended€to€effect€a€satisfaction.€òòRhea€v.€MarkoÐ 4„ ÐConstr.€Co.óó,€652€S.W.2d€at€332,€334€(Tenn.€1983);€òòInland€Equipment€Co.óó,€241€S.W.2d€at€565òòóó;Ð  p ÐòòPinneyóó,€686€S.W.2d€at€578.òòóóÐ  \ ÐÌà  àLDI,€as€the€party€asserting€the€defense€of€accord€and€satisfaction,€has€the€burden€of€provingÐ ä4 Ðeach€element€of€the€defense.€€This€includes€the€terms€of€the€accord€(the€new€agreement),€satisfactionÐ Ð  Ðby€performance€or€that€the€payment€was€offered€on€the€condition€that,€if€accepted,€it€would€be€in€fullÐ ¼  Ðsettlement€of€the€demand,€and€that€the€creditor€understood€the€conditions€of€the€tender€or€theÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances€under€which€it€was€made€were€such€that€he€was€bound€to€understand.€òòQuality€CareÐ ”ä ÐNursing€Services,€Inc.€v.€C.B.€Colemanóó,€728€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€1987)€(citing€òòInland€Equipment€Co.óó,Ð €Ð Ð241€S.W.2d€at€565„66).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€new€agreement€that€resolved€the€dispute€concerning€the€fees€owed€to€LDI€and€theÐ D!” Ðdamages€sustained€by€Dukes€&€Co.€is€memorialized€in€a€letter€from€LDI€to€Glenn€Dukes€of€DukesÐ 0"€  Ð&€Co.€dated€April€13,€1999.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€letter€does€not€address,€directly€or€indirectly,€future€claims€byÐ #l! ÐDukes€or€any€waiver€of€the€right€to€assert€other€or€additional€claims.€€The€substantive€part€of€theÐ $X" ÐApril€1999€letter€from€LDI€provides:Ð ô$D # ÐÌÐ  Ì&"% Ðà  àApril€13,€1999Ð ° ÐÌà  àMr.€Glenn€DukesÐ ˆØ Ðà  àDukes€&€CompanyÐ tÄ Ðà  à5115€Maryland€Way,€Suite€305Ð `° Ðà  àBrentwood,€TN€37027Ð L œ ÐÌà  àRe:à0 ` àInverness€Cost€OverrunsÐ$ t` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àLDI€Job€#€117004Ð  ` ÐÌà  àDear€Glenn:Ð è 8  ÐÌà  à*€*€*€*Ð À  Ðà  àÌà8  àWe€are€in€agreement€with€the€cost€numbers€that€your€office€has€produced€and€areÐ ˜è  Ðwilling€to€offer€you€credits€on€your€remaining€invoices€in€the€amount€of€$11,250.00.€Ð „Ô  ÐThis€represents€a€credit€of€$1,105.50€(~11%)€above€the€$10,112.77€indicated€on€yourÐ pÀ Ðoverrun€worksheet€to€account€for€downtime.€€The€total€amount€outstanding€would€beÐ \¬ Ð$11,186.53.€€If€the€above€amounts€are€acceptable€to€you€please€let€us€know€at€yourÐ H˜ Ðconvenience€and€we€will€have€our€accounting€department€issue€the€appropriateÐ 4„ Ðcredits€upon€receipt€of€the€outstanding€balance.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àGlenn,€we€look€forward€to€continuing€our€relationship€with€you€and€hope€that€thisÐ øH Ðwill€bring€this€issue€to€a€close.€€If€you€have€any€questions€or€require€additionalÐ ä4 Ðinformation€please€feel€free€to€call€at€your€convenience.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àSincerely,Ð ¨ø Ðà  àLDI€Design€LLCÐ ”ä Ðà  à(letter€signed€by€Dwight€E.€Kiser€and€David€W.€Dederer,€as€principals€for€LDI)Ð €Ð ÐÌÌà  àLDIððs€defense€is€based€primarily€on€the€April€1999€letter€and€the€testimony€of€Dwight€KiserÐ D!” Ðand€David€Dederer.€€Although€the€letter€and€testimony€constitutes€proof€of€an€accord€as€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðmatters€in€dispute€in€April€of€1999,€such€fails€to€constitute€evidence€of€a€global€accord€andÐ #l! Ðsatisfaction€or€a€bar€to€subsequent€claims€by€Dukes.€€The€testimony€of€Kiser€and€Dederer€did€littleÐ $X" Ðmore€than€provide€a€better€understanding€of€the€disputed€costs€incurred€by€Dukes€during€theÐ ô$D # Ðconstruction€of€Section€Nine€and€was€refuted,€in€part,€by€Travis€Dukes€of€Dukes€&€Co.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àLDI€is€encumbered€with€the€burden€to€prove€the€accord€bars€the€claims€at€issue.€òòSee€Pinneyóó,Ð ¸'#& Ð686€S.W.2d€at€577.€€The€evidence€introduced€by€LDI€established€an€accord€concerning€its€fee€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdamages€sustained€in€Section€Nine;€it€did€not€however,€establish€the€fact€the€parties€reached€anÐ )à$( Ðâ âagreement,€a€global€accord€that€would€preclude€subsequent€or€additional€claims€Dukes€may€assert.€Ô‡ X½XXX½ÔÐ |*Ì%) ÐFinding€the€counter„claim€by€Dukes€&€Co.€is€not€barred€by€accord€and€satisfaction,€we€will€evaluateÐ ° Ðthe€merits€of€the€counter„claim€based€upon€the€evidence€in€the€record.Ð œì Ðâ âÓ  Óò òòòÌClaims€of€Dukes€&€Co.€and€Spencer€Hall,€LLCóóó óÐ tÄ ÐÓÌLÓÔ#†X½XX X½»K#ÔÌà  àDukes€and€Spencer€Hall,€LLC,€filed€a€joint€Brief€of€Appellants.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€For€their€second€issue,€theyÐ L œ Ðcontend€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€they€failed€to€prove€any€claim€for€damages.׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€find€no€errorÐ 8 ˆ Ðwith€the€finding€of€the€trial€court.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAppellants€contend€the€design€by€LDI€for€Section€Twelve€contained€significant€engineeringÐ ü L  Ðerrors.€€The€errors,€Appellants€contend,€resulted€in€intersecting€sewer€and€storm€drainage€pipes,Ð è 8  Ðviolation€of€requirements€of€the€City€of€Franklin€pertaining€to€minimum€criteria€for€ð ðcoverðð€andÐ Ô$  Ðð ðseparationðð€of€underground€pipes,€and€plans€that€did€not€adequately€handle€storm€water€runoff.€Ð À  ÐAppellants€further€assert€LDIððs€design€errors€caused€them€to€incur€additional€construction€costs,Ð ¬ü  Ðdamages€resulting€from€delays€in€the€completion€of€the€development,€and€increased€loan€costs€dueÐ ˜è  Ðto€delays.Ð „Ô  ÐÔ‡ X½XXX½ÔÌà  àIt€is€undisputed€the€project€was€plagued€by€construction€problems€that€resulted€in€additionalÐ \¬ Ðconstruction€costs.€€It€is€also€undisputed€that€Appellants,€one€or€both€of€them,€incurred€damages€dueÐ H˜ Ðto€delays€in€construction€that€increased€loan€costs.€€Furthermore,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€delaysÐ 4„ Ðprevented€Appellants€from€selling€lots€on€schedule,€which€resulted€in€cash€flow€problems€and€otherÐ  p Ðdamages.€€What€is€disputed,€hotly€disputed,€is€whether€the€delays€and€damages€were€the€direct€andÐ  \ Ðproximate€result€of€acts€and€omissions€by€LDI.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€is€a€maze€of€convoluted,€inconsistent,€contradictory€and€disputed€factsÐ Ð  Ðregarding€the€cause€of€the€construction€problems,€including€without€limitation€intersecting€pipes,Ð ¼  Ðstorm€water€runoff,€delays€resulting€from€disputes€with€contractors€and€the€City€of€Franklin.€€ThereÐ ¨ø Ðis€also€evidence€that€some€of€the€delays€likely€were€the€result€of€Dukesðð€financial€problems.€Ð ”ä ÐAdditionally,€there€is€credible€evidence€LDI€was€excused€by€Dukes€of€any€future€involvement€in€theÐ €Ð Ðproject€following€the€April€1999€accord€and€LDIððs€absence€and€non„involvement€may€haveÐ l¼ Ðcontributed€to€some€of€the€problems€at€issue.€€Furthermore,€LDI€has€a€contractual€defense€to€claimsÐ X ¨ Ðfor€damages€that€may€have€resulted€from€changes€by€others€as€the€contract€between€LDI€and€DukesÐ D!” Ðexpressly€provided€ð ðLDI€shall€not€be€responsible€for€changes€made€in€the€Documents€by€anyoneÐ 0"€  Ðother€than€LDI€.€.€.€without€the€participation€of€LDI€.€.€.€.ðð€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àLDI€presented€credible,€material€evidence€from€which€the€trial€court€could€reasonablyÐ ô$D # Ðconclude€the€legal€cause€of€Appellantððs€damages€does€not€lie€at€the€feet€of€LDI.€€Although€AppellantsÐ à%0!$ Ðintroduced€countervailing€evidence€to€contest€that€of€LDI,€there€is€material€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ° Ðindicating€LDI€is€not€liable€for€the€damages€at€issue.€€Ô#†X½XX X½%R#ÔÔ‡ X½XXX½ÔThere€is€credible€evidence€that€significant€costsÐ œì Ðincurred€by€Dukes,€and€construction€problems€that€delayed€the€project,€were€the€result€of€the€acts€orÐ ˆØ Ðomissions€of€others€for€which€LDI€is€not€responsible.€€For€example,€Dukes€sued€the€contractor,Ð tÄ ÐMRM,€contending€it€was€responsible€for€inferior€work€on€section€twelve,€and€Dukes€sued€SessionsÐ `° ÐPaving€contending€its€work€was€substandard.€€Moreover,€the€City€of€Franklin€pulled€Dukesðð€bondÐ L œ Ðbecause€Dukes€was€unable€to€proceed€with€construction€in€a€timely€fashion.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€issue€pertains€to€design€and€planning€services.€€To€successfully€prevail€on€their€claimÐ  ` Ðfor€damages,€Appellants€must€show:€€(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)Ð ü L  Ðconduct€falling€below€the€applicable€standard€of€care€amounting€to€a€breach€of€that€duty;€and€(3)Ð è 8  Ðcausation€in€fact€and€for€a€proximate€cause€of€damages€or€injury.€òòMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyóó,€806Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.2d€767,€774€(Tenn.€1991);òò€see€also€United€American€Bank€of€Memphis€v.€Gardneróó,€706€S.W.2dÐ À  Ð639,€642€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985)Ô#†X½XX X½%[#ÔÔ‡ X½XXX½Ô(holding€there€are€three€elements€necessary€to€the€existence€of€aÐ ¬ü  Ðcause€of€action€for€negligence:€(1)€a€duty€of€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€a€breachÐ ˜è  Ðof€that€duty;€and€(3)€a€causal€relation€between€the€injury€to€the€plaintiff€and€defendant's€breach€of€hisÐ „Ô  Ðduty€of€care).Ô#†X½XX X½¬`#ÔÔ‡ X½XXX½Ô€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAppellants€have€failed€to€satisfy€the€foregoing€criteria.€€Moreover,€credible€evidence€in€theÐ H˜ Ðrecord€suggests€that€€many€of€the€problems€were€due€to€changes€made€by€Dukes€and€its€contractorsÐ 4„ Ðafter€the€dismissal€of€LDI,€that€acts€and€omissions€by€the€contractor€engaged€by€Dukes€contributedÐ  p Ðto€the€problems€complained€of,€and€that€Dukes€hired€another€engineering€firm€which€providedÐ  \ Ðservices,€including€revisions€to€LDIððs€original€design,€that€may€have€contributed€to€delaysÐ øH Ðcomplained€of€by€Dukes.€€There€is€also€credible€testimony€that€the€sewer€lines€were€laid€before€theÐ ä4 Ðstorm€pipe€was€laid,€which€is€contrary€to€construction€custom€and€practice,€and€may€also€haveÐ Ð  Ðcontributed€to€the€problems€complained€of€by€Dukes.׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÔ#†X½XX X½Lb#Ôà  àÔ‡ X½XXX½ÔWe€give€great€weight€to€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€of€credibility€of€witnesses.€€òòEstateÐ ”ä Ðof€Waltonóó,€950€S.W.2d€at€959;€òòB€&€G€Constr.,€Inc.óó,€37€S.W.3d€at€465.€Ô#†X½XX X½‡f#ÔÔ‡ X½XXX½Ô€òòóóThe€trial€court€considered€theÐ €Ð Ðconflicting€evidence€and€found€the€evidence€insufficient€to€prove€any€claim€for€damages€against€LDI.€Ð l¼ ÐFor€us€to€reverse€this€finding,€the€evidence€to€sustain€a€claim€for€damages€against€LDI€must€have€aÐ X ¨ Ðgreater€convincing€effect.€òòWalkeróó,€40€S.W.3d€at€71;€òòThe€Realty€Shop,€Inc.óó,€7€S.W.3d€at€596.€€TheÐ D!” Ðevidence€in€this€record€fails€to€satisfy€this€evidentiary€threshold.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trialÐ 0"€  Ðcourtððs€finding€that€the€evidence€fails€to€prove€any€claim€for€damages€against€LDI€by€Dukes€&€Co.Ð #l! Ðand€Spencer€Hall,€LLC.€Ô#†X½XX X½g#ÔòòóóÐ $X" ÐÌÐ  à%0!$ ÐÌà@KK$ìàòòò òIn€Conclusionó óóóˆÐ œì ÐÌà  àWe€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€Ô‡ X½XXX½Ôagainst€Dukes€&€Co.€of€$10,186,€plus€pre„judgmentÐ tÄ Ðinterest,€and€remand€this€matter€for€entry€of€a€judgment€dismissing€the€claims€of€Dukes€&€Co.€andÐ `° ÐSpencer€Hall,€LLC,€against€LDI€Design,€LLC.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àCÔ#†X½XX X½*k#Ôosts€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€Dukes€&€Co.€and€Spencer€Hall,€LLC,€and€their€surety.Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFRANK€G.€CLEMENT,€JR.,€JUDGEò òó ó