that City Sign could renew the lease “at the end of 10-years.” The parties properly recognize that no Tennessee case has clarified the requisite time frame within which an , 311-12 (La.Ct.App.1981) (acknowledging that if a lease does not expressly designate a time frame for renewal, the lessee must exercise the option within a time which, under all the circumstances, the lessor intended to give the lessee to communicate the intent to renew); Kearney v. Hare, 265 N.C. 570, 144 S.E.2d 636, 639 (1965) (stating that with a lease containing a renewal option that did not require specific notice from the lessee, a presumption existed that the option was exercised where the lessee held over after the original term and continued to pay rent); Caito v. Ferri, 44 R.I. 261, 116 A. 897 (1922) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Coulter v. Capitol Fin. Co., 266 N.C.
holding that under an option requiring renewal at the expiration of the lease but providing no more specific time requirement the lessee had a reasonable time to exercise the option within the term of the lease holding that the damage for tenancy at sufferance during the holdover period was the monthly rent under the lease versus the apartments fair market value because the lease contained a provision requiring lease payments beyond the lease term holding that the lease pro vision granting the lessee the option of constructing improvements did not make the construction the pith of the lease recognizing that a lease providing for renewal at the termination of the lease did not require the lessee to exercise the option before the lease expired nor did it require renewal at the precise hour of termination but gave the lessee a reasonable time after the termination of the lease in which to make his election holding that under an option requiring renewal at the expiration of the lease the lessee was required to exercise the option on or before the last day of the lease