by BCBST. Plaintiffs argue that they never agreed to pay these fees and that, when BCBST sent a written amendment for them to sign, they refused to sign it. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an agreement as “[a] mutual understanding between two or more persons about their relative rights and duties regarding past or future performances; a manifestation of mutual assent by two or more persons.” BLACK’S 67. Plaintiffs understood that, if the Agreement were renewed for an additional year, they would have a duty to pay the increased fees; in return, Plaintiffs received the right to BCBST’s services. Plaintiffs manifested assent to this arrangement when they began paying the higher fee. Cf. Kantor v. Memphis Plaza Hotel Partners, Ltd-I, 1987 WL 15525, at *1-2 (Tenn.Ct.App. Aug.13, 1987) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the amount of the fee increases
holding that the judicial admission exception did not apply to prove the existence of an oral agreement for the sale of stock where the defendant offered his deposition testimony acknowledging that the parties agreed to have a document transferring the stocks drafted by an attorney because the defendants references to the agreement were in terms of a tentative or incomplete agreement and because any admission of such a contract would necessarily have to include a statement of the price and quantity terms holding that the repeated sending of a writing which contains certain standard terms without any action with respect to the issues addressed by those terms cannot constitute a course of dealing which would incorporate a term of the writing otherwise excluded under  2207 because the repeated exchange of forms by the parties only tells buyer that seller desires certain terms given sellers failure to obtain buyers express assent to these terms before it will ship the program buyer can reasonably believe that while seller desires certain terms it has agreed to do business on other terms those terms expressly agreed upon by the parties holding that agreement had been reached where the plaintiff had proposed terms for providing his services to the defendant and the parties then entered into a business relationship  despite defendants claim it never agreed to the plaintiffs proposed salary terms for that relationship holding that the terms on the back of an invoice sent after the parties entered into a contract were enforceable because the invoices were issued relatively contemporaneously with the shipment of goods  the parties dealings involved identical invoice provisions throughout the parties relationship  additional terms were found in the invoices that were not in the purchase orders and the plaintiff never exercised any opportunity to delete these additional terms holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement