AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Ala. R.App. P. 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E). See also Ala. R.App. P. 28(a)(10); Bruce v. Cole, 854 So.2d 47, 59 (Ala. 2003); Birmingham Hockey Club v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 827 So.2d 73, 85 (Ala. 2002); Smith v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 537 So.2d 463, 465 (Ala. 1988); Hickman v. Winston County Hosp. Bd., 508 So.2d 237 (Ala. 1987).

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant Burns on the plaintiffs tortious interference claim and in favor of defendant Home Depot on the plaintiffs promissory fraud claim. I respectfully dissent from affirming summary judgment in favor of Home Depot on the plaintiffs contract claim.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in affirming the summary judgment except insofar as it concerned the breach-of-contract claim. I conclude that, as to that claim, genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to whether one or the other of the two purchase-order memo-randa sent by Smith Family Companies, Inc., to Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., satisfied the requirement of § 7-2-201(2), Ala.Code 1975, when Home Depot gave no written notice of objection to the contents of those purchase-order memoranda.