T e n n . C t. A p p . R . 1 0 p ro v id e s: 1

T h e C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f a ll ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in th e c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l o p inio n wo ul d have no prec edent i al val ue. W hen a cas e i s deci ded by mem oran dum opi ni on, i t s hal l b e d es i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , ” shal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 25, 200 4
SCOTT GREER, D 

### /B 

### / A 

### A-1 SEPTI C TANK v. G EORG E WI LLI S, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Wilson County No. 12828 John D. Wootten, III, Jud ge

No. M2003- 02508-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Jun e 24, 2004

This ap p e a l in v o lv e s a n a c ti o n f o r b r e a c h o f a n o r a l c o n tr a c t to p u mp o u t a s w im mi n g p o o l. The Circuit Court for Wils o n C o u n ty conducte d a benc h trial and a war ded the plaintiff a judgme nt a g a in s t b o thth e o w n e r

o f th e p o o l an d th e a f

f il iate r e a l e s tate b r o k e r

w h o r e q u e s te d th e w o rk

. We have c oncluded that the e vidence does not support the judg ment ag ainst the property owner but aff irm the judg ment ag ainst the broker

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d in P ar t a nd Reve rsed in Par t
W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., de liv e re d th e op ini on of

the c ou rt

. Robert J

. Notestine, I I I , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellants, Geor g e Willi s and AmSouth Bank.
Rob e rt Ev a ns L e e a ndJame s M. L e a , Jr. , L e ba no n, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lle e , Sc ott

Gr e e r d /b/ a A-1 Septic Ta nk.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1

I.
AmSouth Bank a cquire d certain rea l pr operty in H artsville, Tenne ssee throug h a for eclosure sale. AmSouth subsequently hired Ge org e Wil lis, a licence d aff iliate rea l estate broke r, to list andW e n ot e t hat t wel ve 2, 30 0 gal l on l oads a t $17 5 per 1, 00 0 gal l ons woul d re s ul t i n a ch ar ge of $4, 83 0 ra t her t han 2 $4, 200. H owe v er , M r
. G r ee r on l y r equ es t ed $4, 200. -2- sell the property

. The prope rty included a la

rg e swimming pool, a nd Mr. Will is was warned that the pool could become a bre eding g round for mosquitos. According ly , Mr. Will is contac ted Scott Gree r, d/b/a A-1 Septic Tank, about pumping out the pool. Mr. G ree r, who ha d never pumped out a pool befor e, ag ree d to pump out the pool even though he had not seen it and had no idea of its siz e. Mr. Gre er te stified that he told Mr. Will is the char g e would be $175 per 1,000 g allons of water re moved. Mr . Wil lis te sti fi e d he did no t re c e ive a qu ote oth e r tha n Mr. Gr e e r’ s e sti ma te that th e job wo uldc os t sever al hundre d dollars. Messrs. Willi s and Gre er did not execute a written contra ct.
After Mr. Gre er be g an pumping out the pool, he ca lled Mr. Will is to advise him it would t ake
se ve ra l a dd iti on a l lo a ds to e mpty the po ol. I t e ve ntu a lly

too k twe lve 2, 30 0 g a llo n loa ds to e mpt y the pool. Mr. Greer then prese nted M r. W illis an invoice f or $4,200. Mr. Will is testified that, after

2 h e re ce i v ed t h e invoi ce, he advised Mr. G ree r that he c ould not pay $4,200, that he wa s just the listi ng ag ent, and that he had no authority to incur more tha n $250 in expenses on AmSouth’s behalf.

Whe n n e ith e r A mSo uthno r M r. Willi s p a id the inv oic e , M r. Gr e e r f ile d a c omp la int

a g a ins t bo th o f the m in the Wils on Cou nty Ge ne ra l Sess ion s Court. Th e c a se wa s re mov e d to the Cir c uit Court for Wilson C ounty

wher e it was tried without a jury

. The trial court found that the evidenc e preponde rate d in favor of t he contentions of Mr. Gre er and awa rded him a judg ment in the amount
o f $ 4 , 2 0 0 a g a i n s tA m S o u t h a n d M r
. W i l l i s j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y.
II.
We r e vie w the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t de no vo wi th a pr e su mpt ion that the y are c or re c t. Te nn . R. App . P. 13 (d ); Fell v. Rambo , 36 S.W. 3d 83 7, 84 6 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0) . We wi ll r e ve rs e the trial court’s finding s only if we c onclude, ba sed on our own independent re view of the rec ord on appea l, that the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst them. In re Estate of W alton , 950 S.W .2d 956, 95 9- 60 (T e nn . 1 99 7) ; B & G Con str ., In c . v . P olk , 3 7 S. W. 3 d 4 6 2 , 4 6 5 ( T e n n
. Ct

. A p p
. 2 0 0 0 )

. We will a ls o a c c o r d g r e a t w e ig h t to f in d in g s th a t ar e b a s e d o n a tria l c o u r t’ s d e te r mi n a tion of the witnesses’ c redibility

beca use it was the tria l c ourt, not this court, who observe d the witnesses a nd had an opportunity to a ssess thei r c re d i b i l i t y
. In re Estate of W alton , 9 50 S.W. 2da t 95 9; Fell v. Rambo , 36 S.W .3d at 846.
III

. Am Sou th andMr . Wil lis fi rs t a sse rt that th e re wa s no c on tr a c t be tw e e n the pa rt ie s b e c aus e there was no mee ting of the minds a s to the amount to be paid for Mr. Gre er’ s service s or eve n the deg ree of services. Mr. W illis ’s t estimony differ s signific antly from that of Mr . Gre er r eg arding the parties’ initial conversation about the cost of draining the pool. Mr. Wil lis testified that Mr. Gre er stated the job would cost only “seve ral hundred dol lars.” Mr. Greer testified that he quoted $175 per-3-

1,000 g allons. Mr. Gre er also testified t hat, when he later told Mr. W illis it would take se vera l more loads to finish the job, Mr. Wi llis st ated “ it had to be done.” Mor eover , the re cord r efle cts that Mr. Wil lis “orde red the work a s he fe lt like the pool needed to be pumped to enable him to sell t he property .”
The trial c ourt implicitl y

cre dited Mr. Gre er’ s testimony , and we acc ord t hat decision gre at weig ht. After c onducting an i n d epende nt review of the re cord, w e cannot conclude the evidenc e preponde rate s ag ainst the trial court’s decision reg arding the exist ence of a c ontrac t or the amount of the judg ment.
IV.
Am Sou th n e xt co nte nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in a wa

rd ing the plaint if

f a jud g me nt a g a ins t it because there was no privity of contra ct betwe en Mr. Gr eer and AmSouth, and Mr. Willi s did not have the requisite authority to enter into the c ontrac t with Mr. Gree r on AmSouth’s behalf. T here appea rs to be no dispute t hat M r. W illis did not have the a ctual authority to enter into the c ontrac t with Mr. Gre er o n b ehalf of AmSouth and that he eng ag ed Mr. Gr eer ’s servic es without the knowledg e or consent of AmSouth. Mr. Gr eer contends, howe ver, that Mr. Wil lis had the appa rent authority to bind AmSout h. We have d etermined the evidenc e does not support the tria l court’s judgme nt ag ainst AmSouth. Appar ent authority

is essentially

ag ency by estoppel. W

h it e v
. M e th o d is t H

o s p it a l S. , 8 44 S.W .2d 642, 646 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). I ts ex istence de pends upon such c onduct by the principa l as would pre clude the principal from de ny ing another’s a g ency
. Ke lly v . Cliff Pe tti t M oto rs , 191 Te nn . 3 90 , 2 34 S.W. 2d82 2 ( 19 50 ). Th e lia bil ity of the princ ipa l is de te rm ine d ina ny pa rt ic ula r c a se by wh a t auth ority

the thi rdpe rs on , e xer c isi ng re a so na ble c are and pr

ud e nc e , w a s ju sti fi e d in be lie vin g that th e princ ipa l ha d b y his a cts und e r the c ir c ums ta nc e s c on fe rr e d u po n h is a g e nt. So uth e rn Ry . Co . v . P ic k le , 138 Tenn. 238, 246, 197 S.W. 675, 677.
“It is well settled that appar ent authority must be established throug h the ac ts of the principa l rathe r than those of

the ag ent.” Bells Banking Co. v. Jac kson Centre, Inc

. , 938 S.W .2 d 421, 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). Aprincipal is responsible for the acts of an ag ent only wher e the principal himself by

his acts or c onduct has c lothed the ag ent with the appe arance of authority , and not wher e t h e a g e n t ’ s o w n c o n d u c t h a s c r e a t e d t h e ap p ar e n t au t h o r i t y. Me c ha nic s Laun dr y Se rv . v. Au to G las s Co. of M e mp his , 98 S.W. 3d 15 1, 15 7 (T e nn
. Ct. Ap p. 20 02 ). To pr ov e app are nt a uth ority on e mus t e s t ab l i s h ( 1 ) t h e p r i n c i p a l a c t u a l l y o r n e g l i g e n t l y a c q u i e s c e d i n a n o t h e r p ar t y’ s e x e r c i s e o f

a u t h o r i t y; (2) the third pe rson had knowle dge o f t h e facts and a g ood faith belief that the appa

rent a g ent possessed such authority ; and (3) the third person re lied on this appare nt au t h o ri t yto his or her de tr ime nt. Mec hanics Laundry Servic e v. A uto Glass Co. of Mem phis, Inc. , 98 S.W .3d at 157.
Ac c or din g ly , to sh ow that Mr . Wil lis ha d th e app are nt a uth ority to e nte r i nto the c on tr a c t w ith Mr . G re e r o n b e ha lf

of Am Sou th, Mr . G re e r mus t sh ow that A mSo utha c tua lly or ne g lig e ntl y acquie sced in Mr. G ree r ente ring into the contrac t, that Mr. Greer ha d a re asonable , g ood faith belief-4-

that Mr . Wil lis ha d s uc h auth ority , a ndthat Mr . G re e r r e lie d o n M r. Willi s’s aut ho ri ty to h is detriment. The rec ord is de void of any such evide nce. T he re cord r evea ls onlythat AmSouth hired Mr. Will is to li st and attempt t o sell the property . There is simpl y no evidenc e in the re cord that AmSouth took any action that clothed Mr. Wil lis with the appea ranc e of authority

to enter into the
c o n tr a c to r

t h a tM r
. G r e e r

h a d a r e a s o n ab l e , g o o d f

a i t h b e l i e f t h a tM r
. W i l l i s h a d s u c h a u t h o r i t y.
V.
We affirm the judgme nt agai n s t Mr. Will is in the amount of $4,200. We reve rse the judgme nt ag ainst AmSouth and remand the case to the trial court for f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent wi th this op ini on . T he c os ts a re ta xedon e -h a lf

to M r. Gr e e r andon e -h a lf to Mr . Wil lis a ndhis surety , for whic h execution may issue.

PER C URI AM