or that BCBST’s offer for continued service was made on a “take it or leave it basis” does not mean that Plaintiffs did not agree to those increases. Next, Plaintiffs argue that BCBST should be forced to refund the fee increases because the Agreement requires that any amendments be in writing. When BCBST sent proposed amendments to Guardsmark reflecting the terms for renewal, Guardsmark refused to sign them. Guardsmark’s briefs make clear that its goal was to avoid indicating agreement to the fee increases and to preserve a legal argument for a refund based on the absence of a written amendment to the Agreement. Plaintiffs are equitably es-topped from making this argument, as discussed below. See R.J. Betterton Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Whittemore, 769 S.W.2d 214, 215-16 (Tenn.Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>). Also, the Agreement provides that “[t]his
holding a party breaches a plea agreement by acting in a manner not specifically prohibited by the agreement but still incompatible with explicit promises made in the agreement holding that where one party had received a written agreement and conformed his conduct to that agreement for an extended period of time but failed to sign the agreement he was equitably estopped from denying the validity of the agreement holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that the parties agreement was superseded by a subsequent agreement that stated that it comprises the entire agreement and supersedes all prior understandings and representations oral or written between the parties