Mobile Attic, Inc., and Mobile Attic Franchising, Inc. v. Kiddin' Around of Alabama, Inc., d/b/a Real People, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:4/29/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090735 Mobile A t t i c , Inc., and Mobile A t t i c F r a n c h i s i n g , Inc. v. K i d d i n ' Around o f Alabama, Inc., d/b/a Real People, e t a l . Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-902125) THOMAS, J u d g e . In early Franchising, rent 2005, Mobile Inc. (referred portable storage Attic, I n c . , and Mobile to collectively facilities, d i r e c t i o n t otake t h e i r a d v e r t i s i n g . were Attic as "MA"), which considering what S p e c i f i c a l l y , MA d e s i r e d 2090735 t o have p r o f e s s i o n a l t e l e v i s i o n c o m m e r c i a l s p r o d u c e d t o o f f e r to f r a n c h i s e e s as developing and a method o f assisting f u r t h e r i n g MA's the business. franchisees To that end, b e g a n d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h an a d v e r t i s i n g a g e n c y , T o t a l C o m , ("TC"). Most of the discussions regarding were b e t w e e n B e t s y H a r r i s , t h e m a r k e t i n g Jimmy W a r r e n , t h e p r e s i d e n t o f In March proposal 2005, MA's encompassing television Inc. d i r e c t o r f o r MA, and TC. with TC production of set TC MA commercials discussions the commercials. the in presented a MA yielded with of a a three written p r o p o s a l c o n t a i n i n g e s t i m a t e s from t h r e e p r o d u c t i o n companies. The written proposal "all a n t i c i p a t e d costs story boards, production, the estimates, gave MA MA and for television production: concepts, models, and to Warren TC or MA a DP shooting, After considering three set of companies, three to production begin enter 2 company. into Dill television S e p t e m b e r 26, the p r o d u c t i o n and sets, W a r r e n on permission as props, of the produce H a r r i s e-mailed the editing." s e l e c t e d one c o m m e r c i a l s w i t h DP did included expenses, ("DP"), commercials. estimates writing, site Productions and indicated that At a written of no 2005, the point contract 2090735 containing detailed television commercials. DP produced terms the relating commercials, t o the p r o d u c t i o n of the and TC billed MA f o r the c o m m e r c i a l s , w h i c h c o s t a t o t a l of $196,000, i n October and November 2 0 0 5 ; MA paid both invoices. Neither 2005 invoice c o n t a i n e d a b r e a k d o w n o f t h e c o s t s b e i n g c h a r g e d by DP. c o m m e r c i a l s were made a v a i l a b l e March f o r MA's use The i n February or 2006. On March 16, 2007, a p p r o x i m a t e l y a y e a r a f t e r MA first s t a r t e d a i r i n g t h e c o m m e r c i a l s , W a r r e n c o n t a c t e d H a r r i s by mail, r e q u e s t i n g t h a t MA p a y t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s f o r t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t o r s used i n the commercials. i m m e d i a t e l y r e s p o n d t o W a r r e n ; she f i r s t to e¬ J o s h W i l s o n , who 1 H a r r i s d i d not forwarded the e-mail s e r v e d as t h e c h i e f f i n a n c i a l o f f i c e r of M o b i l e A t t i c F r a n c h i s i n g and t h e s e c r e t a r y / t r e a s u r e r o f M o b i l e Attic. In her e-mail to Wilson, H a r r i s s t a t e d : " [ T ] h i s i s the A c c o r d i n g to the evidence at t r i a l , t a l e n t - r e n e w a l fees are used t o compensate t h e a c t o r s a p p e a r i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r commercials because the a c t o r s are p r e c l u d e d from a p p e a r i n g i n o t h e r c o m m e r c i a l s d u r i n g t h e t i m e and i n t h e m a r k e t s t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o m m e r c i a l s a r e b e i n g r u n . The f e e s v a r y b a s e d on the geographic r e g i o n s i n which t e l e v i s i o n commercials are a i r e d and can a p p a r e n t l y be p a i d e i t h e r y e a r l y o r q u a r t e r l y t o e i t h e r t h e t a l e n t company o r t h e a d v e r t i s i n g a g e n c y , w h i c h t h e n p a y s t h e t a l e n t company. 1 3 2090735 first I've heard of [the t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s ] " and w o u l d have remembered t h i s b e c a u s e i t was that there our be no attachment t o the commercials." Neither (capitalization H a r r i s nor and W a r r e n a g a i n the t a l e n t - r e n e w a l t o W a r r e n by an being pressured s e n t on response i n her conversations t h a t we've had talent-renewal H a r r i s on A p r i l 10, the t a l e n t - r e n e w a l and other the April April she she that she 9, "[did] recall any about ongoing t a l e n t f e e s . " In not stating i n her talent-renewal l a c k o f memory f e e s , Warren s e n t a n o t h e r e - m a i l 2007, s t a t i n g t h a t he recalled e-mail message t h a t fees, to she office. Wilson d i d not and Harris budgets forwarded copied remember Warren, discussing t h a t s u c h f e e s w o u l d have s e n t up f l a g f o r h e r , and t h a t no p a p e r w o r k had b e e n l o c a t e d 4 to discussing f e e s when d i s c u s s i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n 2007, pay 2007, i n w h i c h c o s t s w i t h H a r r i s i n her 10, 2007, H a r r i s responded response to H a r r i s ' s e-mail communicating her about the e-mail, Warren's e - m a i l t o W i l s o n ; forwarding also with by a t a l e n t company t o f e e s t h a t had become due. e-mail me original.) H a r r i s by e - m a i l on A p r i l 7, s t a t e d t h a t she was stated agency W i l s o n responded to Warren's contacted s t a t i n g t h a t TC was VERY i m p o r t a n t t o t a l e n t or the in "I think I a red regarding 2090735 the television commercials. r e c a l l e d anything Harris a l s o a s k e d W i l s o n i f he f r o m t h e m e e t i n g s w i t h W a r r e n and r e q u e s t e d t h a t W i l s o n ask Pete Cash, the p r e s i d e n t a d i s c u s s i o n about t a l e n t - r e n e w a l o f MA, i f he r e c a l l e d fees. W a r r e n e - m a i l e d H a r r i s a s e c o n d t i m e on A p r i l a p o l o g i z i n g that H a r r i s d i d not r e c a l l talent-renewal fees. and procedure required Harris responded the d i s c u s s i o n of the He s t a t e d t h a t t h e f e e s were when t o Warren using by e-mail 10, 2007, professional again that "standard talent." same day, stating: " I w o u l d n o t have known t h a t i t i s s t a n d a r d and r e q u i r e d procedure t o pay annual t a l e n t fees f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l t a l e n t . I had never used p r o f e s s i o n a l talent and y o u h a d n e v e r p r o v i d e d me with a breakdown of our c o s t s , o r o n g o i n g f e e s . I f I had known t h e r e were f e e s o r o t h e r c o s t s a t t a c h e d , I w o u l d have u s e d [MA e m p l o y e e s ] o r d i f f e r e n t t a l e n t , as t h a t i s what I h a d done i n t h e p a s t w i t h g r e a t success. The o n l y amount t h a t I r e c a l l i s f o r t h e t o t a l production of the three commercials. I have a s k e d t h e o t h e r s i n t h e o f f i c e who were i n v o l v e d i n our meetings and none of us remember any c o n v e r s a t i o n r e g a r d i n g o n g o i n g t a l e n t f e e s . We have no d o c u m e n t a t i o n anywhere o f t h i s . " Warren responded t o H a r r i s ' s second A p r i l 10, 2007, mail, stating: "I'm s o r r y i f my n o t e i m p l i e d t h a t y o u s h o u l d have known a b o u t t h e t a l e n t r e n e w a l s . I w o u l d n o t e x p e c t 5 e¬ 2090735 y o u t o know o t h e r t h a n o u r d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t i t . f e e l very b a d l y about the misunderstanding. ... I " B i l l [ B r a n c h , a n o t h e r TC e m p l o y e e , ] a n d I remember d i s c u s s i n g i t , b u t I t r u l y r e g r e t t h a t a p p a r e n t l y we d i d n o t make i t c l e a r . " In the c l o s i n g paragraph TC pay one-half of o f h i s e - m a i l , W a r r e n o f f e r e d t o have the talent-renewal fees " b e c a u s e a p p a r e n t l y we c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e f o r the year misunderstanding." U l t i m a t e l y , TC p a i d a l l t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s f o r t h e y e a r running from March resigned from 2007 t o March further resignation letter representation provided the renewal fees f o r the year 2009. MA apparently T r e a s u r e r , W.G. demanding Robert In i t s ("RP"), t h e t a l e n t professional contacted days. MA. TC accept f o r future talent-renewal fees. I n c . , d/b/a R e a l P e o p l e commercials, MA of 2007, some p o i n t i n t h e s p r i n g o f 2008, K i d d i n ' A r o u n d o f Alabama, that In J u l y t o MA, W a r r e n s t a t e d t h a t TC w o u l d no f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y At 2008. MA actors directly running d i d not regarding in the MA's talent- f r o m M a r c h 2008 t o M a r c h respond Henry, sent a l e t t e r , payment used company to dated RP, and RP's June 4, 2008, t o of the talent-renewal fees within 10 When MA d i d n o t p a y t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s , RP e n g a g e d D. Norman t o s e n d a demand 6 letter t o MA. Norman's 2090735 letter, d a t e d June 13, 2008, demanded payment talent-renewal threatened f e e s by June 20, 2008. legal action against MA o f $10,500 i n Norman's l e t t e r i f t h e payment also was not made. On J u l y 2, 2008, MA relief against TC filed and RP an a c t i o n s e e k i n g d e c l a r a t o r y and s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m a g a i n s t TC. it had r e c e i v e d p r o p o s a l s f r o m TC, t h a t MA Specifically, a fraudulent- MA a l l e g e d t h a t t o produce t e l e v i s i o n commercials h a d s e l e c t e d DP t o p r o d u c e t h e c o m m e r c i a l s b a s e d on TC's p r o p o s a l , to asserting t h a t MA h a d n e v e r s e e n DP's estimate TC, t h a t e i t h e r TC o r DP h a d c o n t r a c t e d w i t h RP f o r RP t o p r o v i d e t h e a c t o r s f o r t h e c o m m e r c i a l s , t h a t MA h a d n e v e r b e e n informed Harris of in the talent-renewal March communications 2007, with RP and fees that until RP t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s i n June 2008. court declare that MA was until Warren had never MA demanded that MA e-mailed had any pay the MA r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the talent- r e n e w a l f e e s and t h a t , i f RP was owed any t a l e n t - r e n e w a l TC was t h e p a r t y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r payment. jury t r i a l on t h e f r a u d u l e n t - s u p p r e s s i o n 7 fees, MA s o u g h t a claim against TC. 2090735 TC a a n s w e r e d MA's "response" September to 9, complaint the 2008, complaint on People S t o r e , T a l e n t , I n c . ("HT"), two had on A u g u s t 13, August Inc. 2008; RP 25, ("PS"), 2008. and Houghton c o n t r a c t e d , moved t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e a c t i o n and p a r t i e s a g r e e d t o a l l o w PS and HT PS and HT 2009, RP, RP sought a 2008, the to i n t e r v e n e i n the a c t i o n , withdrew t h e i r request PS, On o t h e r t a l e n t companies w i t h which t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r ("TRO"); on O c t o b e r 9, and filed f o r a TRO. In September and HT ( c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e t a l e n t companies") asserted what they entitled a "conditional c o u n t e r c l a i m , " i n w h i c h t h e y s o u g h t $21,000 i n t a l e n t - r e n e w a l fees from MA i f MA were unsuccessful in i t s declaratory- judgment a c t i o n . Trial November on 23, suppression conclusion entered the 2009; claim a was separate set for o f t h e November 23, an o r d e r "(1) declaratory-judgment on December 10, trial a later claim on the date. 2009, t r i a l , the held on fraudulentAfter trial 2009, d e c l a r i n g t h a t The Plaintiff, [MA,] is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e payment t o the Defendants of renewal of t a l e n t fees f o r s e r v i c e s rendered by [ t h e t a l e n t c o m p a n i e s ] . 8 was the court 2090735 "(2) As to the counterclaim, a Judgment i s entered for the counterclaimants, [the talent companies,] i n the amount of Twenty One Thousand Dollars ($21,000.00). "(3) A S t a t u s C o n f e r e n c e i s s e t on J a n u a r y 6, 2010, a t 8:30 a.m. as to the fraud claim by [MA] a g a i n s t [TC] On December 31, 2009, MA to file what i t considered p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. purported s o u g h t an e x t e n s i o n o f t h e t i m e to grant. to C i v . P., However, 2 be a postjudgment motion which the t r i a l because the fraudulent- s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m r e m a i n e d o u t s t a n d i n g , t h e December 10, order was appeal, not and a any final judgment motion seeking capable of court 2009, supporting reconsideration of an that judgment would not have been a postjudgment motion under R u l e 59. See M a l o n e v. G a i n e y , 726 So. 2d 725, 725 n.2 App. 1999) to a (Ala.Civ. ("[A] R u l e 59 m o t i o n may be made o n l y i n r e f e r e n c e final judgment or order."). MA sought a second We n o t e t h a t s u c h an e x t e n s i o n i s n o t p e r m i t t e d u n d e r t h e Rules of C i v i l Procedure. See R u l e 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ( p e r m i t t i n g the t r i a l court t o e n l a r g e the time w i t h i n which t o p e r f o r m an a c t u n d e r t h e r u l e s e x c e p t t h e t i m e t o t a k e any a c t i o n u n d e r c e r t a i n r u l e s , i n c l u d i n g R u l e 5 9 ( b ) , ( d ) , and (e)). 2 9 2090735 "extension" on F e b r u a r y purported to grant. motion, On purportedly 3, 2010, which the M a r c h 5, 2010, pursuant MA to trial court also ultimately f i l e d a Rule 59, seeking r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s December 10, 2009, o r d e r . The trial court denied t h a t m o t i o n on M a r c h 29, f i l e d i t s n o t i c e of appeal May 10, o f t h e December 10, 2010, and MA 2009, o r d e r on 2010. Because the December 10, 2009, order was not a final j u d g m e n t , t h i s c o u r t remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r it P., to "determine whether to e n t e r a Rule certification trial court February 24, 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. Civ. as t o t h e December [ 1 0 ] , 2009, o r d e r . " The certified the order as a final judgment 2011. "The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t f o l l o w e d a b e n c h t r i a l , at which the c o u r t heard ore tenus evidence. '"When a j u d g e i n a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a j u d g m e n t b a s e d on f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on t h a t t e s t i m o n y w i l l be p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l e x c e p t f o r a p l a i n and p a l p a b l e e r r o r . " ' S m i t h v. M u c h i a , 854 So. 2d 85, 92 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. v. S k e l t o n , 675 So. 2d 377, 379 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . "'"The o r e t e n u s r u l e i s g r o u n d e d upon t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t when t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s o r a l t e s t i m o n y i t has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t e t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . " H a l l v. Mazzone , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . The r u l e a p p l i e s t o 10 on 2090735 " d i s p u t e d i s s u e s of f a c t , " whether the dispute is based entirely upon oral t e s t i m o n y o r upon a c o m b i n a t i o n o f o r a l t e s t i m o n y and d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e . B o r n v. C l a r k , 662 So. 2d 669, 672 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . The ore tenus s t a n d a r d of review p r o v i d e s : " ' " [ W ] h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e has b e e n [presented] ore tenus, a presumption of correctness attends the trial court's c o n c l u s i o n on i s s u e s o f f a c t , and t h i s Court w i l l not d i s t u r b the t r i a l court's conclusion unless it is clearly erroneous and a g a i n s t the g r e a t weight of the evidence, but w i l l affirm the j u d g m e n t i f , u n d e r any r e a s o n a b l e aspect, i t is supported by credible evidence."'" Y e a g e r v. Lucy, 998 So. 2d 460, 462-63 ( A l a . 2008) Reed v. B o a r d o f T r s . f o r A l a b a m a S t a t e U n i v . , 778 795 358, ( A l a . 2000) 360 The (quoting So. 2d ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n R a i d t v. C r a n e , 342 So. 791, 2d (Ala. 1977))). testimony and H e n r y . The as a t r i a l exhibit at t r i a l was p r o v i d e d by Wilson, d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f H a r r i s was and read i n t o the record. By Warren, introduced and t h e t e s t i m o n y o f W a r r e n and H a r r i s m i r r o r e d t h e i r large, statements i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e e - m a i l s , q u o t e d a b o v e , w h i c h were a d m i t t e d as e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l . H e n r y ' s t e s t i m o n y was irrelevant question and into whether MA TC had 11 entered a to the contract 2090735 c o n t a i n i n g any terms r e g a r d i n g the payment o f talent-renewal fees. W a r r e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e c a l l e d d i s c u s s i n g the t a l e n t - renewal fees w i t h H a r r i s i n her o f f i c e a t one of the m e e t i n g s t h e two had had b e t w e e n M a r c h 2005 and as they discussed c o m m e r c i a l s MA production and d e s i r e d t o be made. other several S e p t e m b e r 2005 costs for the S p e c i f i c a l l y , Warren s a i d t h a t he r e c a l l e d t e l l i n g H a r r i s t h a t u s i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l t a l e n t in the commercials would necessitate the payment of " r e s i d u a l s " i n s u b s e q u e n t y e a r s i f t h e c o m m e r c i a l s were u s e d . Warren also said he explained to Harris that r e n e w a l f e e s w o u l d n e e d t o be p a i d e a c h y e a r t h e were u s e d a f t e r t h e standard. f i r s t y e a r and talent- commercials t h a t t h e y were an industry W a r r e n a d m i t t e d t h a t he d i d n o t a s s i g n a p a r t i c u l a r amount t o t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s b e c a u s e , he s a i d , t h e y were "a m o v i n g t a r g e t " b e c a u s e t h e y were b a s e d on w h i c h t h e c o m m e r c i a l s were a i r e d . According the fees discussion because and knowledgeable she because about and had asked she had no 12 questions in in had of the t a l e n t - portrayed experienced markets t o W a r r e n , he assumed t h a t H a r r i s u n d e r s t o o d h i s e x p l a n a t i o n renewal the during the herself as marketing and 2090735 advertising. Warren a d m i t t e d t h a t H a r r i s had n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e s p o n d e d t o h i m when he m e n t i o n e d t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l Harris ongoing denied costs any memory like of a discussion the talent-renewal fees. regarding fees. She any further t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t r e c a l l t h e d e t a i l s o f any m e e t i n g other than a story-board she would specifically not have meeting. agreed recalled However, she t e s t i f i e d t h a t to telling such fees Bill and Branch, that she another TC e m p l o y e e , t h a t she d i d n o t want "web f e e s " a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e c o m m e r c i a l b e c a u s e she w a n t e d t o be a b l e t o u s e t h e c o m m e r c i a l when a n d where s h e c h o s e . issue regarding "web According fees" t o H a r r i s , she h a d h a d an arise with another "piece" that C a s h h a d done t h a t h a d f e a t u r e d T e r r y B r a d s h a w as a n a r r a t o r . H a r r i s s a i d any mention o f t a l e n t - r e n e w a l fees or ongoing w o u l d have s e n t up a " r e d f l a g " f o r h e r b e c a u s e o f t h a t experience. She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t o the commercials t o u s e them f o r t h r e e Wilson with t h a t she i n t e n d e d that TC testified regarding MA's Harris to five h a d h a d t h e most advertising other she h a d i n f o r m e d TC t h a t she d i d n o t want any s t r i n g s a t t a c h e d and fees and marketing years. contact plans. A l t h o u g h he a n d C a s h h a d a t t e n d e d a few o f t h e m e e t i n g s a n d 13 2090735 although both commercials, had to Wilson a d v e r t i s i n g f o r MA. the proposal production proposal from TC He of that According to obligated seemed t o him have had estimates covered him the "total way over t o pay t h a t H a r r i s had C a s h had pay a three- to that he fees He the the fees. he from would not known t h a t MA because total t h a t he costs period Bradshaw; according fees would of i f MA Wilson also have would those the were testified an i s s u e w i t h f e e s a r i s e o v e r t h e done i n v o l v i n g T e r r y the a c t o r s used i n explained five-year talent-renewal had estimates c o s t of the testified predicting the for costs" the talent-renewal of from of the word " m o d e l s " i n the that t o be " o p e n e n d e d . " no commercials required to for h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a g r e e d t o p u r c h a s e t h e c o m m e r c i a l s had be the responsible was for that was Wilson expenditure to Wilson, companies i n c l u d e d the commercials. the Harris s a i d t h a t t h e use indicated production the said companies commercials. approve to "piece" Wilson, t h e i s s u e w i t h t h a t " p i e c e " a r o s e i n l a t e 2005 o r e a r l y 2006, w h i c h w o u l d have been a f t e r t h e discussions W a r r e n b e t w e e n M a r c h 2005 and S e p t e m b e r 2005. t h a t MA continued she had had with Wilson admitted t o use t h e c o m m e r c i a l s e v e n a f t e r i t l e a r n e d 14 2090735 of the talent-renewal regarding fees the d e l i n q u e n t and even after RP contacted f e e s i n 2008. On a p p e a l , MA makes two a r g u m e n t s f o r r e v e r s a l . MA first a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code § 8-9-2, b a r s recovery of the oral c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n MA that could not be a r g u e s t h a t TC oral contract a d d r e s s MA's MA talent-renewal and TC b e c a u s e t h e p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n one failed regarding the second argument failed c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t h e two MA correctly mutual assent one Secondly, to the fees. points out, We to prove mutual assent the t a l e n t - r e n e w a l a "meeting of the 161, ( A l a . 1982). See will L i l l e y v. G o n z a l e s , 417 According t o MA, to the prove fees. m i n d s " or t o the terms of a c o n t r a c t i s n e c e s s a r y of a c o n t r a c t . MA alleged companies because i t c o u l d not formation 163 c o n t r a c t was first. a "meeting of the minds" r e g a r d i n g As the year. talent-renewal 1975, fees under to prove mutual assent a r g u e s t h a t TC MA to So. a the 2d Harris's s i l e n c e at t h e t i m e t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s were a l l e g e d l y d i s c u s s e d was not s u f f i c i e n t to r e l a y consent to t h a t p a r t i c u l a r term of the oral contract. MA relies on Denson v. 15 Kirkpatrick Drilling 2090735 Co. , 225 Ala. 473, 144 So. 86 (1932), p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t s i l e n c e c a n n o t be as support c o n s t r u e d as for the assent. However, MA has t a k e n a s i m p l i s t i c v i e w o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n of mutual assent by i n Denson, i n w h i c h o u r e x p l a i n i n g the general rule supreme c o u r t b e g a n that, unless a contract i s r e q u i r e d by l a w t o be i n w r i t i n g and s i g n e d by t h e p a r t i e s , an o f f e r e e need not s i g n the c o n t r a c t t o e v i n c e h i s or her mutual assent to i t . court then Denson, 225 cautioned become e f f e c t i v e unambiguous.'" Eng'g & Constr. as A l a . a t 479, t h a t "'such an 144 So. a t 91. acceptance, however, a b i n d i n g c o n t r a c t must be positive 90). that Co., 218 Ala. 325, 326, 118 So. acceptance speaking by an 127, statement mere of the general rule silence and inaction, as o f f e r e e has a right t o make no the 168, § offer.'" Id. (quoting 1 W i l l i s t o n 168, 91). 16 §§ noted 'generally reply to on 571 precludes and h i s s i l e n c e and i n a c t i o n c a n n o t be c o n s t r u e d as an to and 570, In the c o n t e x t of t h a t d i s c u s s i o n , the c o u r t "[t]his to I d . ( q u o t i n g S t e p h e n s o n B r i c k Co. v. B e s s e m e r ( 1 9 2 8 ) , and c i t i n g 1 W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s , pp. 72, The offers, assent Contracts, p. 2090735 However, e v e n i f "mere s i l e n c e " c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d an a s s e n t t o an o f f e r , t h i s c a s e does n o t i n v o l v e "mere s i l e n c e . " "'It i s well settled contract i s determined that whether parties have entered by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e a meaning of t h e p a r t i e s ' e x t e r n a l and o b j e c t i v e a c t i o n s . Cook's P e s t Control, ( A l a . 2002) I n c . v. Rebar, ( q u o t i n g SGB C o n s t r . 644 852 Servs., So. 730, 738 I n c . v Ray S u m l i n So. 2d 892, 895 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . beliefs 2d Constr. Co., N e i t h e r t h e uncommunicated o f a p a r t y n o r any m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s regarding the i m p o r t o f p a r t i c u l a r t e r m s p r e v e n t an o b j e c t i v e m a n i f e s t a t i o n of i n t e n t from b e i n g Mayo v. A n d r e s s , effective. Lilley, 417 So. 2d a t 163; 373 So. 2d 620, 624 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; a n d J o h n s o n v. B o g g a n , 325 So. 2d 178, 182, 56 A l a . App. 668, 672 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 7 5 ) . Based were p a r t costs on W a r r e n ' s between the talent-renewal o f the d i s c u s s i o n about the p r o d u c t i o n of the t e l e v i s i o n develop. testimony, commercials t h a t MA fees and o t h e r d e s i r e d TC t o " [ A ] c o n t r a c t may c o n s i s t o f s e v e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s the p a r t i e s , constituting contract." a link Lawler some i n writing a n d some i n the chain which comprises Mobile Homes, I n c . v . T a r v e r , 17 oral, each the e n t i r e 492 So. 2d 2090735 297, TC, 304 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . Thus, t h e w r i t t e n p r o p o s a l submitted by t h e e - m a i l s between t h e p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e l e c t i o n o f DP as t h e p r o d u c t i o n company, a n d t h e o r a l d i s c u s s i o n s b e t w e e n Warren and H a r r i s r e f l e c t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n MA a n d TC r e l a t i n g t o the t e l e v i s i o n commercials. Likewise, the actions of the p a r t i e s i n r e f e r e n c e t o the c o n t r a c t can form the b a s i s of mutual assent; that i s , when t h e c o n d u c t o f one p a r t y i s s u c h t h a t t h e o t h e r p a r t y may r e a s o n a b l y assent See t o t h e a g r e e m e n t , t h a t c o n d u c t i s e f f e c t i v e as a s s e n t . Deeco, I n c . v. 3-M Co., 435 So. 2d 1260, 1262 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; Mayo, 373 production process, So. 2d a t 624. commercials, silence when W a r r e n preproduction a n d MA that contract regarding mentioned discussions a n d MA's u s e o f t h e o f MA's a s s e n t 18 to Harris's talent-renewal of the other agreement the production i n that prevented mutual assent in light conveyed of the b y TC, MA's We c a n n o t a g r e e w i t h MA t h a t terms o f t h e c o n t r a c t Harris participation commercials a l l formed t h e b a s i s c o n t r a c t w i t h TC. reported the MA's authorization MA's payment o f t h e i n v o i c e s s u b m i t t e d finished during Harris's of the commercials, acceptance of the f i n i s h e d the draw t h e i n f e r e n c e o f fees to actions of t o t h e terms of the commercials. of the 2090735 The dissent actions of MA disagrees in going with our forward conclusion with c o m m e r c i a l s can e v i d e n c e m u t u a l a s s e n t because, the dissent says, TC's the making i n these actions that the of the circumstances in failing to list t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s i n t h e p r o p o s a l and i n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s e c o n d i n v o i c e was f o r the " f i n a l " payment f o r t h e costs r e l a t i n g to the commercials prevents p a r t i e s from e v i d e n c i n g mutual assent. production the a c t i o n s of Although the the proposal and t h e i n v o i c e s do n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s were i n c l u d e d i n the comports w i t h first year's commercials renewal fees c o s t of p r o d u c i n g the explanation fees are for the included the commercials, that o f how cost of i n the that could accrue those the talent production f o r the fees work. used costs. years fact the The in Talentcommercial m i g h t be u s e d a f t e r t h e f i r s t y e a r c a n n o t be c a l c u l a t e d a t time of purely production; speculative commercial. In that at those the addition, payable to the p r o d u c t i o n time the fees of would the even be production talent-renewal fees disagree the due is of the are not company b u t i n s t e a d must be p a i d t o the t a l e n t companies, whether d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y . we the Thus, t h a t t h e a c t i o n s o f TC i n m a k i n g t h e p r o p o s a l 19 and 2090735 in i n v o i c i n g MA f o r the p r o d u c t i o n costs of the u n d e r c u t o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t m u t u a l a s s e n t was MA's actions commercials m a n i f e s t e d by i n p r o c e e d i n g t o have t h e c o m m e r c i a l s and i n a c c e p t i n g and u s i n g t h e f i n i s h e d B e f o r e we turn t o MA's produced commercials. argument t h a t the o r a l contract b e t w e e n i t and TC i s v o i d u n d e r t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s , we must consider whether the Statute b e l o w o r was w a i v e d by MA's defense of Frauds defense f a i l u r e to plead that i n i t s complaint or another pleading. was raised affirmative TC and the t a l e n t c o m p a n i e s a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t MA w a i v e d t h e S t a t u t e o f Frauds defense by not raising response to the c o u n t e r c l a i m . 981, 983 ( A l a . 1983) Procedure, which must the be i t in i t s complaint or in Hughes v. W a l l a c e , 429 So. 2d ("Under R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a b a m a R u l e s o f statute of specially f r a u d s i s an pleaded. ...[F]ailure c o n s t i t u t e s a waiver of that defense."). the defense to do so A c c o r d i n g t o TC and t a l e n t c o m p a n i e s , MA f i r s t r a i s e d t h e d e f e n s e i n c o u n s e l ' s closing argument, companies, transcript, for affirmative Civil at which they objected. i t appears point, say TC and the talent However, b a s e d on o u r r e v i e w o f t h e t h a t MA r a i s e d t h e t h e o r y as a basis a judgment i n i t s f a v o r i n c o u n s e l ' s o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t t o 20 2090735 the trial court that time. by and t h a t none o f t h e a p p e l l e e s objected at Thus, we must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e i s s u e was t r i e d t h e i m p l i e d consent o f t h e p a r t i e s under Rule 15(b), A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , as f o l l o w s : "When i s s u e s n o t r a i s e d b y t h e p l e a d i n g s a r e t r i e d by e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e y s h a l l be t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s as i f t h e y h a d b e e n raised i n the pleadings. Such amendment o f t h e pleadings as may be n e c e s s a r y t o c a u s e them t o conform t o t h e e v i d e n c e and t o r a i s e these i s s u e s may be made upon m o t i o n o f a n y p a r t y a t a n y t i m e , e v e n a f t e r j u d g m e n t ; b u t f a i l u r e s o t o amend does not a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t o f t h e t r i a l o f these i s s u e s . " As this c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d , " [ t ] h e t y p i c a l R u l e 15(b) c a s e i n v o l v e s a s i t u a t i o n i n which a p a r t y , a t t r i a l and w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n f r o m an o p p o s i n g p a r t y , p r e s e n t s e v i d e n c e t h a t g i v e s r i s e t o an i s s u e t h a t was n o t p l e a d e d . I t h a s b e e n c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t when i s s u e s t h a t have n o t been r a i s e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s a r e t r i e d by the express or i m p l i e d consent of the p a r t i e s , those i s s u e s a r e t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s as i f t h e y h a d been r a i s e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s . " Tounzen v. S o u t h e r n U n i t e d 1150 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . The contract the F i r e I n s . Co., 701 So. 2d 1148, evidence trial clearly established a t i s s u e was an o r a l c o n t r a c t , Statute trial at o f F r a u d s d e f e n s e was p l a c e d court at the s t a r t of the t r i a l . 21 that the a n d MA's r e l i a n c e on squarely before the See Hosea O. Weaver & 2090735 Sons, I n c . v. Towner, 663 So. 2d 892, 896 ( A l a . 1995) ( " I t i s well settled law i n Alabama that implied consent of the p a r t i e s c a n be f o u n d when an o p p o s i n g p a r t y f a i l s t o o b j e c t t o the introduction initially."); Miller, of evidence see a l s o Federal raising 5 Charles Practice Alan & Procedure the disputed Wright § 1278 issue & Arthur R. (3d e d . 2004) ("Even as l a t e as t r i a l , i f e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o an u n p l e a d e d affirmative 15(b) defense i s introduced requires the pleadings had r a i s e d t h e d e f e n s i v e 352 So. 2d 1355, 1357 without objection, Rule t o be t r e a t e d as i f t h e y a c t u a l l y i s s u e . " ) ; s e e a l s o R o b i n s o n v. M o r s e , ( A l a . 1977). Therefore, we conclude t h a t t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s d e f e n s e was a s s e r t e d b y MA a t t r i a l without t i m e l y o b j e c t i o n a n d t h a t i t was t r i e d b y t h e i m p l i e d consent of the p a r t i e s . therefore The consider Statute Towner, 663 So. 2d a t 896. MA's S t a t u t e c e r t a i n a g r e e m e n t s t o be The s t a t u t e r e a d s , i n relevant part: "In t h e f o l l o w i n g cases, e v e r y agreement i s v o i d u n l e s s s u c h a g r e e m e n t o r some n o t e o r memorandum thereof expressing the consideration i s i n w r i t i n g and s u b s c r i b e d b y t h e p a r t y t o be c h a r g e d t h e r e w i t h o r some o t h e r p e r s o n b y h i m t h e r e u n t o lawfully authorized i n writing: 22 will o f Frauds argument. o f Frauds r e q u i r e s i n w r i t i n g t o be e n f o r c e a b l e . We 2090735 "(1) E v e r y a g r e e m e n t w h i c h , b y i t s t e r m s , i s n o t t o be p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n one year from t h e making t h e r e o f . " § 8-9-2. MA a r g u e s t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t t o p a y t a l e n t - r e n e w a l was n o t e n f o r c e a b l e fees o f Frauds because the w o u l d n o t have come due a n d p a y a b l e more t h a n one y e a r which contends, until early 2007, a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d o r a l c o n t r a c t was made, the p a r t i e s agree Thus, MA fees under t h e S t a t u t e fees was no l a t e r t h e agreement than September 2005. t o pay t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l c o u l d n o t have b e e n p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n one y e a r . We n e e d n o t d e c i d e , however, whether t h e o r a l b e t w e e n MA a n d TC i s b a r r e d u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n because, as t h e a p p e l l e e s applies only t o executory point (1) o f § 8-9-2, out, the Statute that executory, the oral of Frauds c o n t r a c t s and n o t t o e x e c u t e d ones. Ex p a r t e Ramsay, 829 So. 2d 146, 155 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . argues contract contract between Although i t a n d TC remains we c a n n o t a g r e e . "A c o n t r a c t i s e x e c u t o r y i f n e i t h e r p a r t y h a s f u l l y p e r f o r m e d h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y . ... A c o n t r a c t i s e x e c u t e d , and n o t v o i d e d by t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s , i f [one p a r t y ] h a s f u l l y p e r f o r m e d h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o t h e [other p a r t y ] and sues t h e [other party] t o o b t a i n [that party's] performance or the completion of [that party's] performance." 23 MA 2090735 Ex p a r t e Ramsay, 829 So. 2d a t 155. As our supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d , a c o n t r a c t i s not executory when " [ n ] o t h i n g r e m a i n s t o be done e x c e p t t o pay S c o t t v. S o u t h e r n C o a c h & Body Co., 280 The i s undisputed evidence Ala. t h e money." 670, 673, 197 t h a t TC So. and a l l p e r f o r m e d any o b l i g a t i o n s t h e y may contract b e t w e e n MA that contract. c o n t r a c t was The MA's and TC Statute In had of i t and TC we talent (1967) . companies have had u n d e r t h e agreements oral stemming from performance under the oral conclude, f e e s when o r then, t h a t the i s an e x e c u t e d c o n t r a c t n o t have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t sufficient b e t w e e n MA and TC including the requirement regarding Thus, an o r a l c o n t r a c t was the p r o d u c t i o n We 777 oral barred Frauds. conclusion, before the 775, payment o f t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n MA the any only remaining i f s u c h payment became due. by or 2d evidence to the find trial mutual the terms of t h e i r o r a l that MA pay and o f and payment f o r t h e t e l e v i s i o n TC assent contract, talent-renewal f o r m e d b e t w e e n MA court fees. regarding commercials. We have a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e o r a l c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n MA TC i s an result, e x e c u t e d and t h a t the not Statute an executory contract, of Frauds would not 24 and, void that and as a oral 2090735 contract. B a s e d on t h e s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t MA was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e payment o f the talent-renewal fees and awarding the t a l e n t companies $21,000 on t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m s e e k i n g payment o f t h o s e f e e s i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., concurs. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s Bryan, i n the r e s u l t , without J., dissents, with Pittman, J . , recuses writing. himself. 25 writing. 2090735 BRYAN, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . Undisputed The Attic, "MA"), following facts are Facts undisputed. In 2005, I n c . , and M o b i l e A t t i c F r a n c h i s i n g , I n c . which rent portable d i s c u s s i n g w i t h TotalCom, Inc. storage (collectively facilities, Betsy Harris, represented president. and Warren, in MA was the represented marketing those Warren, i n those director discussions F o l l o w i n g the began ("TC"), an a d v e r t i s i n g a g e n c y , the p o s s i b i l i t y of having p r o f e s s i o n a l t e l e v i s i o n p r o d u c e d f o r MA. Mobile by commercials d i s c u s s i o n s by for Jimmy MA; TC was Warren, TC's i n i t i a l d i s c u s s i o n s between H a r r i s i n March 2005, sent Harris a written p r o p o s a l c o n t a i n i n g e s t i m a t e s from t h r e e p r o d u c t i o n companies of the cost f o r producing TC's all a s e t of three commercials f o r w r i t t e n proposal s t a t e d t h a t those anticipated story boards, production, site costs for television writing, expenses, models, and "[e]stimates include production: props, editing." A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e s t i m a t e s , MA sets, Harris, on September 26, selected D i l l 26 2005, sent concepts, shooting, (Emphasis ( " D i l l " ) as t h e p r o d u c t i o n company t o p r o d u c e t h e and MA. Warren added.) Productions commercials, an e-mail 2090735 telling using him t o p r o c e e d w i t h the p r o d u c t i o n Dill as the production company. of the TC and commercials MA did not p r e p a r e and s i g n a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t m e m o r i a l i z i n g t h e t e r m s o f their agreement. October 6, TC subsequently 2005, b i l l i n g produce" the three MA sent for of c o m m e r c i a l s and 11, 2005, b i l l i n g MA MA an production an i n v o i c e d a t e d November 11, approximately 2005, i n v o i c e s i n f u l l . a year after MA first c o m m e r c i a l s , W a r r e n s e n t H a r r i s an e - m a i l pay talent-renewal the commercials. 3 MA fees f o r the d i d n o t pay Procedural MA s u e d TC and dated costs to November f o r t h e " [ f ] i n a l M> o f p r o d u c t i o n c o s t s t o p r o d u c e " t h e t h r e e c o m m e r c i a l s . MA p a i d TC's and invoice one of the On O c t o b e r 6, 2005, M a r c h 16, 2007, started airing the requesting that MA p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t o r s used i n the talent-renewal fees. History t a l e n t agencies claiming the t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s , s e e k i n g a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t i t was n o t o b l i g a t e d t o pay talent-renewal t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s and f e e s were owed, t h e y were owed by t h a t , i f any TC. MA also The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t a l e n t agencies charge " t a l e n t r e n e w a l f e e s " f o r a c t o r s who a p p e a r i n a c o m m e r c i a l b e c a u s e the a c t o r s cannot appear i n other commercials i n the markets where t h e first commercial is airing until the first commercial ceases a i r i n g . 3 27 2090735 s t a t e d a c l a i m of fraudulent suppression a jury trial agencies with respect claiming to that a g a i n s t TC and s o u g h t claim. talent-renewal Two other fees intervened. Subsequently, a l l three t a l e n t agencies asserted a g a i n s t MA, court seeking ordered a separate jury trial f o r MA's c l a i m and h e l d a b e n c h t r i a l seeking declaratory counterclaims counterclaims $21,000 i n t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s . The suppression a talent fraudulent- r e g a r d i n g MA's judgment and the $21,000 seeking in talent-renewal F o l l o w i n g the bench t r i a l , the t r i a l trial talent claim agencies' fees. c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t MA was o b l i g a t e d t o p a y t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l and awarding fees. The the t a l e n t trial court agencies $21,000 in fees talent-renewal d i d n o t make any e x p r e s s f i n d i n g s of fact. MA t h e n a p p e a l e d . B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l n o t d i s p o s e o f MA's court had pursuant trial the not f r a u d u l e n t - s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m and t h e t r i a l certified to Rule c o u r t ' s judgment d i d 54(b), the A l a . R. court with j u r i s d i c t i o n j u d g m e n t as a f i n a l judgment as a final judgment C i v . P., we r e i n v e s t e d the t o determine whether t o c e r t i f y judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , 28 and 2090735 the trial court eventually pursuant to Rule certified i t as a final 54(b). Disputed Evidence W a r r e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n a m e e t i n g a f t e r he the w r i t t e n p r o p o s a l h e r September 26, production no i n M a r c h 2005 and b e f o r e 2005, e - m a i l sent f o r paying response. recollection H a r r i s sent him t e l l i n g him t o p r o c e e d w i t h the of talent-renewal Harris Warren fees testified ever mentioning and that that h i s M a r c h 16, the and 2007, e - m a i l t h a t she no MA that had would be the received talent-renewal w o u l d n o t have a g r e e d t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n c o m m e r c i a l s i f she responsible a s k i n g TC t o pay Harris she r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s b e f o r e she fees Harris o f t h e c o m m e r c i a l s , he t o l d H a r r i s t h a t MA w o u l d be responsible made judgment for paying had h e a r d Warren say the talent-renewal t h a t MA would of be fees. Analysis MA in a r g u e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e c l a r i n g t h a t MA f e e s b e c a u s e , MA t h a t MA i s o b l i g a t e d t o pay s a y s , t h e r e was w o u l d be a g r e e . B e c a u s e TC responsible and MA 29 talent-renewal no m u t u a l a s s e n t by MA f o r the d i d not the talent-renewal p r e p a r e and erred and TC fees. I sign a written 2090735 contract memorializing determine whether t h e t e r m s o f t h e i r a g r e e m e n t , we they mutually assented that MA must would be o b l i g a t e d t o pay t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s on t h e b a s i s o f their conduct. (Ala. See Lilley v. Gonzalez, 417 So. 2d 161, 163 1982). The written proposal TC s e n t MA i n M a r c h 2005 e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t the " [ e ] s t i m a t e s i n c l u d e a l l a n t i c i p a t e d c o s t s f o r television production: models, props, editing." concepts, story boards, sets, shooting, production, ( E m p h a s i s added.) T h e r e was no writing, s i t e expenses, mention of talent- r e n e w a l f e e s i n t h e p r o p o s a l . M o r e o v e r , t h e O c t o b e r 6, invoice TC produce" sent the i n v o i c e TC MA billed three s e n t MA MA for commercials b i l l e d MA of p r o d u c t i o n and the 2005, costs November f o r t h e " [ f ] i n a l M> o f 11, production MA p a i d b o t h t h o s e i n v o i c e s i n f u l l . N e i t h e r o f t h o s e November "final" 11, f u t u r e amounts MA 2005, h a l f of the i n d i c a t e d t h a t MA Warren t e s t i f i e d invoice costs would not w o u l d owe, stated that to produce the owe any and, that invoices indeed, the i t represented the commercials, f u r t h e r amount. which Although t h a t he m e n t i o n e d t o H a r r i s t h a t MA w o u l d 30 to 2005, c o s t s to produce" the three commercials. I t i s undisputed r e f e r r e d t o any and be 2090735 obligated t o pay talent-renewal fees sending her the w r i t t e n proposal proceed with that she the production made no response in a and b e f o r e meeting she t o l d o f t h e c o m m e r c i a l s , he to that statement. after him t o admitted Moreover, subsequent t o Warren's a l l e g e d l y m e n t i o n i n g t o H a r r i s t h a t w o u l d be o b l i g a t e d t o p a y t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l written invoices represented the indicating that the MA f e e s , TC s e n t MA invoices, together, t h e f u l l amount MA w o u l d owe f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n of commercials. The c o n d u c t o f TC i n s e n d i n g MA t h e O c t o b e r 6, 2005, a n d November 1 1 , 2005, i n v o i c e s , t h e c o n d u c t o f TC i n s t a t i n g i n t h e November 11, 2005, i n v o i c e t h a t i t r e p r e s e n t e d h a l f of the production October 6, indicates invoice 2005, that and represented c o s t s , a n d MA's a n d November the the f u l l even i f t h e t r i a l November conduct i n paying the 11, 2005, the p a r t i e s agreed that 11, the " f i n a l " invoices the October 2005, invoice in 6, full 2005, together amount t h a t MA h a d a g r e e d t o p a y . Thus, c o u r t found t h a t Warren had t o l d H a r r i s MA w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r paying talent-renewal that fees, the s u b s e q u e n t c o n d u c t o f t h e p a r t i e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e was no mutual assent to that putative 31 term of the contract. 2090735 Consequently, because the t r i a l MA was error responsible for paying i n applying the law court's error i n holding the t a l e n t - r e n e w a l to the facts, the that f e e s was ore tenus an rule does n o t c l o a k t h a t h o l d i n g w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . See Retail Club, Developers Inc., tenus 985 r u l e does correctness a of Alabama, 2d So. not LLC ( A l a . 2007) 924, extend trial 929 to v. cloak judge's East with The 913 So. 2d 1083, conclusions 1086 (Ala. ("'[T]he of law or account the main o p i n i o n s a y s , ore of the ( q u o t i n g Waltman 2005)). main o p i n i o n a s s e r t s t h a t i t i s r e a s o n a b l e i n v o i c e s would not Golf a presumption i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o the f a c t s . ' " v. R o w e l l , Gadsden for talent-renewal (1) t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l that fees the because, fees would not become p a y a b l e u n l e s s t h e c o m m e r c i a l s were a i r e d f o r more t h a n one year; (2) when the s p e c u l a t i v e whether the t h a n one who year; and (3) w o u l d u l t i m a t e l y be Those t h r e e commercials produced, c o m m e r c i a l s w o u l d be the t a l e n t agencies t o pay TC i t was a i r e d f o r more were t h e p a r t i e s e n t i t l e d to the t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f a c t o r s m i g h t e x p l a i n why p r o v i s i o n o b l i g a t i n g MA were d i d not fees. include a the t a l e n t - r e n e w a l fees i n the p a r t i e s ' c o n t r a c t , b u t t h e y do n o t s u p p o r t 32 the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t 2090735 the parties mutually provision in their Accordingly, evidencing contract a renewal fees, above mutual provision I would 2005, the and judgment of November Therefore, i n c l u s i o n of such a to trial c o n d u c t by t h e p a r t i e s the o b l i g a t i n g MA (1) h o l d t h a t t h e amount b i l l e d 11, 2005, court, i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the t r i a l o f MA. assent no o b l i g a t e d t o pay total the the contract. h o l d i n g t h a t MA was and to b e c a u s e t h e r e was their of assented and inclusion in to pay trial the i t i n the invoices, (3) talent- court erred i n talent-renewal to their (2) remand t h e fees over October 6, reverse the cause with c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment i n f a v o r I respectfully dissent. 4 N o t h i n g h e r e i n s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as e x p r e s s i n g an o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r t h e t a l e n t a g e n c i e s may r e c o v e r t h e t a l e n t - r e n e w a l f e e s f r o m TC. 4 33

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.