ÿWPC· …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU<Ý4 - < w@D 0J„ 0TÎ 0^" 0h€ 0rè 0|Z 0†Ö 0\ 1uì U,a 0d U,ñ U>B)[DC„ AMÇ BU*1ó[v~NvÓÌ D3Ÿ 0@Ò AOÆa 0D' D/k Bš˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-Ïk@ Z‹$Arrus BT RomanGav Ôô Ó3|xK 9:D;D<=>D?e@DAÓ€K2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial éÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌJune€7,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€Ôò ò›œIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌ______________________________________________ÌÓ  ÓÌJERRY€T.€BEECH€à àà àà àó ó)Ìò òCONCRETE€CONTRACTOR,€INC.ó óà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Davidson€No.€93„3316„1ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€$'#;+'h|ò` ç `€€Lß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€C.A.€No.€01A01„9507„CH„00308Ìò òMARY€HENDERSON,ó óà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT,€PART€IÌTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌMaclin€P.€Davis,€Jr.Ìó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€For€AppelleeÌÌÌÌò òJoseph€K.€DughmanÌBruce,€Weathers,€Corley,€Dughman€&€Lyleó óÌNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART,€AND€REMANDEDó ó€ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓOPINION€FILED:ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€SENIORÏJUDGEó óÌÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌFARMER,€J.ó óÌÌÌØØÙ  ÙÑ7€x3XXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àò òPRELIMINARY€STATEMENTó óÌÌÓÓà àThis€case€concerns€the€payment€on€a€contract€for€installation€of€aÏconcrete€driveway.€€Jerry€T.€Beech€Concrete€Contractor,€Inc.€(hereinafter,Ï"Beech")€filed€suit€against€Mary€Henderson€(hereinafter,€"Henderson")€on€aÏsworn€account€for€nonpayment€of€the€contract€price€for€installing€aÏconcrete€driveway€and€a€box€drain.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€Beech€and€Henderson€had€contracted€to€install€a€driveway€and€aÏbox€drain,€but€the€trial€court€determined€that€Beech€had€installed€theÏdriveway€in€an€unworkmanlike€manner€causing€it€to€have€defects.€€As€aÏresult,€the€trial€court€awarded€Beech€the€contract€price€offset€by€theÏamount€of€property€damage€Henderson€allegedly€suffered.€€Beech€appealed,Íand€the€appeal€is€properly€before€this€Court.€€We€affirm€in€part€and€reverseÏin€part.€€Ì€€Ìà@ àò òISSUESó óÌà àBeechððs€issues€are€as€follows:ÌÓ` °„XÒÀ–XÓÓÓà8 àà8 àI.à àWhether€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€Chancellor's€finding€that€Beech€installed€theÏdriveway€in€an€unworkmanlike€manner.ÌÌà8 àà8 àII.à àWhether€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€Chancellor's€finding€that€Beech€orally€agreed€toÏinsure€that€rainwater€would€not€accumulate€on€theÏdriveway.ÌÌà8 àà8 àIII.à àWhether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€failing€to€findÏthat€Beech€and€Henderson€had€entered€into€an€oralÏcontract€providing€for€liquidated€damages€ofÏ$700.00€if€repair€of€the€footprints€failed€toÏsatisfactorily€cure€the€defect.ÌÌà8 àà8 àIV.€à àWhether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€awardingÏdamages€based€on€Henderson's€testimony€regardingÏthe€diminution€in€the€value€of€the€property.ÌÌà8 àà8 àV.à àThe€Chancellor€should€have€awarded€pre„judgment€interest€since€the€damages€of€$8,505.00Ïare€certain.ÌÌÌà àHenderson's€issues€are€as€follows:Ì€Ìà8 àà8 àVI.à àWhether€Beech's€complaint€should€be€dismissedÏand€the€judgment€awarded€Beech€in€the€amount€ofÍ$2,005€should€be€set€aside€(a)€because€the€falseÏtestimony€of€Beech's€president€constituted€uncleanÏhands€on€the€part€of€Beech;€(b)€because€Beech€was€aÏsubcontractor€by€contract€with€Mrs.€Armistead€andÏis€not€entitled€to€a€personal€judgment€against€Mrs.ÏHenderson;€and€(c)€because€the€cost€of€repairing€theÏdefective€driveway€exceeded€the€contract€price.ÌÌà8 àà8 àVII.à àWhether€the€amount€of€the€judgment€should€beÏreduced€by€$555,€which€was€included€in€theÏjudgment€for€the€box€drain€and€culvert€because€(a)Ïthere€was€no€agreement€to€pay€that€amount€for€theÏbox€drain€and€culvert;€(b)€there€was€no€evidenceÏthat€the€box€drain€and€culvert€were€installed€byÏBeech;€and€(c)€it€was€established€by€undisputedÏevidence€that€Beech€removed€the€culvert€from€Mrs.ÏHenderson's€property.€€ÌÌÓ ` °œXÓÓÓà@ àò òSTATEMENT€OF€FACTS€ó óÌà àAppellee€Henderson€resides€in€a€home€located€at€the€intersection€ofÏTyne€and€Lynwood€Boulevards€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.€€In€the€Spring€ofÏ1993,€Henderson€contracted€with€Tara€Armistead€(hereinafter,Ï"Armistead")€€to€design€a€driveway€and€a€landscape€plan€for€her€property.€ÏOne€of€the€purposes€of€the€driveway€and€landscape€plan€was€to€divertÏwater€away€from€the€house.€€The€water€was€flowing€onto€the€propertyÏfrom€Tyne€and€Lynwood€Boulevards.€€€After€developing€a€landscaping€plan,ÏArmistead's€office€notified€Clayton€King€(hereinafter,€"King"),€Beech'sÏpresident,€and€asked€him€to€provide€an€estimate€for€the€driveway,€boxÏdrain€and€culvert.€ò ò€ó ó€After€reviewing€the€blueprint€plans€provided€byÍArmistead,€Beech€provided€an€estimate€of€$7,950.00€for€installation€ofÏthe€driveway.€€€€Beech€also€submitted€an€estimate€for€a€culvert€to€beÏinstalled€at€a€cost€of€$340.00€and€a€box€drain€and€grate€to€be€installed€at€aÏcost€of€$430.00.€€Beech's€estimate€was€submitted€to€Armistead€whoÏpresented€it€to€Henderson.€€€Henderson€agreed€to€the€estimate,€andÏArmistead€contacted€King€and€told€him€that€Henderson€wanted€Beech€to€doÏthe€work.€€€€€€Ìà àBeech€installed€the€driveway€and€box€drain€in€July,€1993.€€€During€theÏcourse€of€the€project,€Henderson€objected€to€some€prints€from€aÏworkman's€shoe€that€had€been€made€in€the€wet€concrete€along€theÏdriveway.€€Beech€offered€to€repair€the€shoeprints,€but€Henderson€wantedÏthe€entire€section€of€concrete€replaced€or€$1,000€deducted€from€the€costÏof€the€project.€€Eventually,€Beech€repaired€the€shoeprints€and€finished€theÏproject.€€Henderson€found€the€repairs€to€the€driveway€to€be€unsightly€andÏunsatisfactory.€€Further,€Henderson€found€that€the€driveway€did€not€drainÏproperly.€€Instead,€the€driveway€retained€water€in€some€sites€causingÏpooling€for€up€to€one€hour€following€a€rainstorm.€€Because€of€theÏshoeprints€and€the€drainage€problems,€Henderson€refused€to€pay€Beech€forÏthe€work€done€to€her€property.€€Ìà àOn€November€10,€1993,€Beech€filed€a€complaint€on€sworn€accountÍagainst€Henderson€to€recover€$8,505.00€for€the€installation€of€theÏconcrete€driveway€and€the€box€drain.€€In€her€Answer,€Henderson€allegedÏthat€she€never€contracted€with€Beech€for€installation€of€a€driveway€andÏbox€drain,€and€that€Beech€had€contracted€with€Armistead,€not€Henderson.€ÏSubsequently,€Beech€amended€its€complaint€to€pray€for€pre„judgmentÏinterest€and€to€add€Armistead€as€a€defendant.€€Beech€alleged€thatÏArmistead€acted€as€an€agent€for€Henderson€in€contracting€with€Beech€forÏthe€installation€of€the€driveway€and€that€Henderson€was,€thus,€liable€forÏthe€payment.€€€€Ìà àA€trial€was€held€in€this€cause€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€DavidsonÏCounty€in€December,€1994.€€Beech's€claims€against€Tara€Armistead€wereÏdismissed€at€the€conclusion€of€the€Plaintiff's€proof.€ò ò€ó óOn€January€11,€1995,Ïthe€trial€court€entered€a€memorandum€making€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€wherein€the€Chancellor€found€that€there€was€a€contractÏbetween€Beech€and€Henderson€to€install€a€driveway€for€$7,950.00€and€aÏculvert€and€box€drain€for€an€additional€$555.00.€€The€trial€court€furtherÏfound€that€Beech€installed€the€driveway€in€an€unworkmanlike€mannerÏresulting€in€$6,500.00€in€damages€to€Henderson's€property.€€Therefore,€theÏtrial€court€awarded€a€judgment€to€Beech€in€the€amount€of€$2,005.00,Ïwhich€is€the€contract€price€of€$7,950.00€minus€$6,500.00€in€damages€toÍHenderson's€property,€plus€$555.00€for€installation€of€the€box€drain.€€TheÏtrial€court€did€not€grant€the€claim€for€pre„judgment€interest€and€the€costsÏwere€split€equally€between€the€parties.€€An€Order€consistent€with€theÏopinion€was€entered€on€January€26,€1995.€€After€timely€filing€a€motion€toÏalter€or€amend€the€judgment,€which€the€trial€court€later€denied,€BeechÏtimely€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€April€12,€1995.€€€€€€ÌÓÓà àThis€Court€is€bound€by€Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.,€upon€our€review€of€thisÏrecord.€€à8 àà8 àÌÌà8 àà8 àð ðUnless€otherwise€required€by€statute,€review€ofÏfindings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€in€civil€actionsÏshall€be€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctnessÏof€the€finding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€In€a€òòde€novoóó€review,€theÏparties€are€entitled€to€a€reexamination€of€theÏwhole€matter€of€law€and€fact€and€this€court€shouldÏrender€the€judgment€warranted€by€the€law€and€theÏevidence.€€òòThornburg€v.€Chaseóó,€606€S.W.2d€672Ï(Tenn.€App.€1980);€òòAmerican€Buildings€Co.€v.€Whiteóó,Ï640€S.W.2d€569€(Tenn.€App.€1982);€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure,€Rule€36.€€We€note€that€noÏsuch€presumption€attaches€to€conclusions€of€law.€ÏòòSeeóó€€òòAdams€v.€Dean€Roofing€Co.óó,€715€S.W.2d€341,Ï343€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€ÌÌÌòòCarter€v.€Kruegeróó,€916€S.W.2d€932,€935€(Tenn.€App.€1995).ÌÌÓÓÌà@ àò òCREDIBILITYó óÌà àIn€order€to€properly€consider€the€merits€of€this€appeal,€it€isÏnecessary€for€the€Court€first€to€dispose€of€some€issues€raised€by€theÏAppellee.€€The€first€issue€raised€by€Appellee€is€that€the€judgment€shouldÏbe€set€aside€and€Beech's€complaint€should€be€dismissed€because€Beech€hadÏunclean€hands.€€Specifically,€Henderson€maintains€that€Clayton€KingÏtestified€that€the€only€prints€made€in€the€wet€concrete€were€those€of€theÏtoe€of€a€shoe€about€three€to€three€and€one„half€inches€long.€€HendersonÏasserts€that€this€testimony€is€contradicted€by€King's€own€answers€toÏinterrogatories,€as€well€as€the€testimony€offered€by€numerous€otherÏwitnesses€who€all€testified€that€some€of€the€prints€were€those€of€anÏentire€shoe.€€€€Ìà àHenderson€relies€upon€this€Court's€decision€in€òòInman€v.€Inmanóó,€14ÏT.A.M.€47„5€(Tenn.€App.€1989),€òòmodified€on€other€grounds€and€affirmedóó,ÏòòInman€v.€Inmanóó,€811€S.W.2d€870€(Tenn.€1991),€to€support€the€propositionÏthat€the€complaint€of€a€perjurer€should€be€dismissed€and€any€judgmentÏentered€in€his€favor€be€reversed.€€Upon€examination€of€the€record€in€thisÏappeal,€it€does€not€appear€to€the€Court€that€there€are€inconsistenciesÏbetween€Clayton€King's€testimony€and€his€answers€to€interrogatories.€ÏKing€testified€that€the€prints€were€not€full€footprints,€and€his€answer€toÏthe€interrogatory€stated€that€the€prints€were€".€.€.€[T]hree€partialÍfootprints€involving€the€front€portion€of€the€foot.€.€.€."€€There€appears€to€beÏno€inconsistency€among€King's€statements€to€support€a€finding€of€perjury,Ïand€the€trial€court€did€not€find€that€perjury€had€been€committed.€ÏAccordingly,€we€decline€to€dismiss€the€cause€on€this€issue.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òÌÌà@ àCONTRACTÌó óòòà à1.€The€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€court's€findingÏthat€a€contract€existed€between€Beech€and€Henderson.Ìóóà àThe€second€of€Appellee's€issues€to€be€addressed€is€whether€aÏcontract€existed€between€Beech€and€Henderson.€€Henderson€asserts€thatÏTara€Armistead€was€an€independent€contractor€who€solicited€and€acceptedÏthe€bid€from€Beech.€€Henderson€also€claims€that€the€only€contract€thatÏexisted€was€one€between€Armistead€as€the€primary€contractor€and€BeechÏas€the€subcontractor.€€Therefore,€Henderson€maintains€that€there€was€noÏprivity€of€contract€between€Beech€Contract€and€her,€and€that€Beech€is€notÏentitled€to€a€personal€judgment€against€her.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€expressly€found€that€Armistead,€as€Henderson'sÏagent,€contracted€with€Beech€to€install€a€driveway.€€Thus,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€Beech€and€Henderson€had,€in€fact,€entered€into€a€valid€andÏenforceable€contract.€€We€will€not€disturb€the€trial€court's€determinationÍas€to€this€issue.€€€Whether€an€agency€has€been€created€is€to€be€determinedÏby€the€relations€of€the€parties€as€the€relations€in€fact€exist€under€theirÏacts,€regardless€of€whether€the€parties€understand€there€to€be€an€agency.€ÏòòRich€Printing€Co.€v.€McKellar's€Estateóó,€330€S.W.2d€361,€376€(Tenn.€App.Ï1959);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSmith€v.€Tennessee€Coach€Co.óó,€194€S.W.2d€867,€869€(Tenn.Ï1946).€There€is€sufficient€evidence€in€the€record€to€indicate€thatÏHenderson€gave€Armistead€the€authority€to€hire€a€contractor€to€performÏthe€project.€€Armistead€asked€Beech€to€bid€on€the€job€which€it€did€upon€theÏbelief€that€Armistead€was€acting€on€Henderson's€behalf€as€her€agent.€€TheÏdriveway€was€constructed€on€Henderson's€property€and€solely€for€herÏbenefit.€€The€record€is€devoid€of€any€proof€that€Armistead€was€a€primaryÏor€general€contractor.€€Therefore,€Beech€was€justified€in€relying€uponÏArmistead's€apparent€authority€as€Henderson's€agent,€and€Henderson€isÏthus€bound€by€Armistead's€actions.€€òòV.L.€Nicholson€Co.€v.€Transcon€Inv.€andÏFin.€Ltd.,€Incóó,€595€S.W.2d€474,€483€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€ÌÓÓòòà à2.€The€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€court's€findingÏthat€Beech€is€entitled€to€$7,950.00€for€installation€of€the€driveway.ÌóóÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€not€only€found€there€to€be€a€valid€contract€betweenÏthe€parties€to€install€a€driveway,€but€also€found€that€Beech€had€installedÏthe€driveway€and€was,€therefore,€entitled€to€the€contract€price€ofÍ$7,950.00€for€installation€of€the€driveway.€€We€find€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€court's€decision€holding€that€Beech€isÏentitled€to€the€contract€price,€and€in€light€of€the€evidence€presented€atÏtrial€we€agree€and€affirm€on€this€issue.€€€€The€issue€of€property€damagesÏarising€from€Beech's€allegedly€unworkmanlike€manner€in€installing€theÏdriveway€will€be€discussed€below.ÌÓÓòòà à3.€The€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€finding€thatÏBeech€is€entitled€to€$555.00€for€installation€of€the€box€drain€and€culvert.ÌóóÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€held€that€there€was€a€separate€agreement€betweenÏBeech€and€Henderson€for€installation€of€a€box€drain€and€culvert.€€Beech'sÏjob€estimate€provided€for€installation€of€an€18€inch€culvert€for€$340.00Ïand€installation€of€a€box€drain€and€grate€for€$430.00.€€We€affirm€the€trialÏcourt's€determination€as€to€the€existence€of€such€an€agreement€betweenÏBeech€and€Henderson.€€However,€Henderson€testified€that€the€culvert,Ïwhile€brought€to€Hendersonððs€property,€ultimately€was€not€installed€andÏwas,€in€fact,€removed€from€the€property.€€In€its€reply€brief,€BeechÏconcedes€that€the€culvert€was€removed.€€Contrary€to€Henderson'sÏassertions€in€her€brief,€the€box€drain€and€grate€were€installed€as€found€byÏthe€trial€judge.€€A€photograph€of€the€box€drain€and€grate€was€introducedÏinto€evidence.€€€€Ìà àThe€Beech€invoice€shows€that€it€charged€Henderson€$430.00€forÏinstallation€of€the€box€drain€and€grate€and€that€it€charged€HendersonÏ$340.00€for€installation€of€the€culvert.€€The€invoice€reflects€that€BeechÏcredited€Henderson€with€only€$215.00€for€the€non„installation€of€theÏculvert€instead€of€the€$340.00.€€This€is€a€differential€of€$125.00.€€There€isÏnothing€to€explain€the€differential.€€The€record€is€silent.€€Beech€maintainsÏthat€the€trial€court€properly€awarded€$555.00€for€the€box€drain€and€grate.€ÏWe€disagree.€€The€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingÏin€this€regard€and€is€reversed€and€disallowed.€€The€proper€amount€dueÏBeech€for€installation€of€the€box€drain€and€grate€is€$430.00.€€The€amountÏof€$125.00€will€be€deducted€from€the€judgment€awarded€to€Beech€ofÏ$8,505.00,€reducing€said€judgment€to€the€amount€of€$8,380.00.Ìà àIn€summary,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€there€was€aÏseparate€agreement€between€Beech€and€Henderson€for€installation€of€theÏbox€drain,€grate€and€culvert,€but€reverse€its€finding€that€the€culvert€wasÏinstalled.Ìà àWe,€therefore,€affirm€the€amount€of€$430.00€for€installation€of€theÏbox€drain€and€grate,€but€reverse€the€granting€of€the€additional€$125.00€byÏthe€trial€court€to€Beech€because€the€evidence€preponderates€against€bothÏof€these€matters.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@ àò òWORKMANSHIPó óÌÓÓòòà à1.€The€evidence€supports€the€Chancellor's€finding€that€BeechÏinstalled€the€driveway€in€an€unworkmanlike€manner.óóÌÌÓÓà àExamination€of€the€testimony€offered€by€Armistead,€Henderson€andÏHenderson's€expert,€Fred€Stephenson,€indicates€that€the€driveway€isÏdefective€because€of€the€footprints€and€the€improper€drainage.€€The€trialÏcourt's€determination€is€supported€by€ample€evidence€in€the€form€ofÏphotographs€of€the€driveway€taken€at€various€times€after€completion€ofÏthe€project.€€The€photographs€clearly€show€where€the€repairs€were€madeÏto€remove€the€shoeprints,€and€the€photographs€also€show€the€many€sitesÏwhere€the€driveway€collects€water€due€to€improper€drainage.€€ÌÓÓòòÇà à2.€The€evidence€supports€the€Chancellor's€finding€that€Beech€orallyÏagreed€to€insure€that€the€driveway€would€not€collect€water.óóÌÌÓÓà àBeech€maintains€that€Henderson€has€had€water€drainage€problems€inÏher€yard€for€some€twenty„two€years,€and€that€Beech€was€not€hired€toÏcorrect€these€problems.€€Beech€claims€that€it€was€simply€hired€to€install€aÏdriveway€and€was€not€asked€to€insure€that€the€water€would€flow€acrossÏthe€driveway€and€not€accumulate.€€€Specifically,€Clayton€King€testifiedÏthat€the€elevations€that€Beech€determined€were€only€elevations€for€theÏconcrete€forms.€€€However,€the€trial€court€found€otherwise.€€Specifically,Ïthe€trial€court€stated€in€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€".€.€.ÏBeech€Concrete€orally€agreed€to€shoot€the€slope€of€the€driveway€to€insureÏthat€rainwater€would€not€accumulate.€€Beech€Concrete€failed€to€do€so."€€Ìà àArmistead€testified€that€one€of€Beech's€duties€was€to€insure€thatÏthe€water€drains€off€the€driveway,€and€she€further€testified€that€ClaytonÏKing,€Beech's€president,€agreed€that€he€would€take€care€of€the€elevationsÏand€the€drainage€of€the€driveway.€€Furthermore,€Sandis€Cooper,€a€localÏbrick€mason€who€took€part€in€the€project,€testified€that€it€was€a€BeechÏemployee€who€determined€the€elevations€for€the€driveway€and€instructedÏCooper€as€to€the€height€to€place€the€brick€and€underlying€concrete€pad.€€TheÏevidence€is€undeniable€that€water€collects€on€the€driveway€due€toÍimproper€drainage.€€Ìà àThe€Court€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trialÏcourt's€finding€that€Beech€installed€the€driveway€in€an€unworkmanlikeÏmanner€and€that€Beech€orally€agreed€to€insure€that€water€would€notÏaccumulate€on€the€driveway.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€will€affirm€the€trialÏcourt's€determination.€€€€ÌÓÓò òÌÓ  ÓDAMAGESó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€awarded€Beech€a€judgment€of€$7,950.00€forÏinstallation€of€a€driveway.€€The€trial€court€offset€that€judgment€byÏ$6,500.00€because€Beech€installed€the€driveway€in€an€unworkmanlikeÏmanner€and€because€Henderson€testified€that€she€had€suffered€propertyÏdamage€in€that€amount.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Beech€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awardingÏdamages€based€on€Henderson's€testimony€regarding€the€diminution€in€valueÏof€her€property.€€The€proof€that€Henderson€set€forth€to€establish€theseÏdamages€was€her€own€testimony.€€Henderson€testified€to€the€diminution€inÏvalue€of€her€property€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ:€Mrs.€Henderson,€in€your€opinion,€what€is€theÏreduction€„„€amount€of€the€reduction€in€your€valueÏof€your€„„€all€of€your€property€there.€€Your€home,€ifÏyou€were€going€to€sell€it€but€didn't€have€to€sell€itÍto€a€buyer€who€wanted€to€buy€it€but€didn't€have€toÏbuy€it.€€In€your€opinion,€what€is€the€difference€orÏreduction€in€the€market€value€between€what€itÏwould€be€worth€if€the€driveway€did€not€have€theÏsections€that€you€complained€about?€€ÌÓ  Óà8 à*€*€*€*ÌÓ  ÓÌà8 àà8 àA:€Well,€my€opinion€would€be€that€the€property€isÏworth€at€least€$6,500€less€than€if€the€drivewayÏwere€as€it€should€have€been,€a€quality€correctÏdriveway.ÌÌÌÓÓà àExamination€of€the€record€on€appeal€indicates€that€while€unrebutted,ÏHenderson's€opinion€testimony€was€all€that€was€offered€regarding€theÏamount€of€damages.€€On€that€basis€alone,€the€Chancellor€offset€theÏ$7,950.00€contract€price€by€$6,500.00€and€awarded€Beech€a€judgment€forÏinstallation€of€the€driveway€of€$1,450.00.€€Ìà àAlthough€an€owner€of€real€property€is€deemed€to€have€specialÏknowledge€about€his€property€to€offer€an€opinion€as€to€its€value,€theÏowner's€opinion€will€be€given€little€weight€when€founded€upon€pureÏspeculation.€€òòAirline€Const.,€Inc,€v.€Barróó,€807€S.W.2d€247,€256€(Tenn.€App.Ï1990).€€There€must€be€some€evidence,€apart€from€mere€ownership,€that€theÏestimate€of€diminution€in€value€is€a€product€of€reasoned€analysis€ofÏevidence€in€the€record,€rather€than€upon€conjecture,€speculation€orÏunwarranted€assumptions.€€òòId.óó€Ìat€256;€òòSee€alsoóó€òòSnow€Bank€Enterprises,€Inc.€v.€United€Statesóó,€6€Cl.€Ct.€476Ï(1984)€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Sowardsóó,€370€F.2d€87,€92€(10th€Cir.€1966)).€ÏTo€support€an€award€of€damages€there€must€exist€proof€of€"damagesÏwithin€a€reasonable€degree€of€certainty."€€€€òòRedbud€Coop.€Corp.€v.€Claytonóó,Ï700€S.W.2d€551,€561€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€Based€upon€the€proof€in€the€recordÏwe€conclude€that€there€was€no€reasonable€or€rational€basis€upon€which€theÏtrial€court€could€have€awarded€diminution€in€value€damages€of€$6,500.00.€ÏThe€trial€court€should€have€given€no€weight€to€Henderson's€valuationÏtestimony.€€Without€Henderson's€testimony,€there€is€no€proof€of€diminutionÏin€value€damages;€therefore,€there€can€be€no€award€of€such€damages€in€thisÏcase.€€òòInman€v.€Union€Planters€Nat'l.€Bankóó,€634€S.W.2d€270,€272€(Tenn.€App.Ï1982).Ìà àThis€Court€has€long€held€that€the€measure€of€damages€for€injury€toÏreal€property€is€the€difference€between€the€reasonable€market€value€of€theÏpremises€immediately€prior€to€and€immediately€after€injury,€but€if€theÏreasonable€cost€of€repairing€the€injury€is€less€than€the€depreciation€inÏvalue,€the€cost€of€repair€is€the€lawful€measure€of€damages.€€òòFuller€v.€OrkinÏExterminating€Co.,€Inc.óó,€545€S.W.2d€103,€108€(Tenn.€App.€1975).€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòWilliams€v.€Southern€Ry.óó,€396€S.W.2d€98,€101€(Tenn.€1965);€òòKillian€v.ÏCampbellóó,€760€S.W.2d€218,€222€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€òòMcKinnon€v.€Michaudóó,Í260€S.W.2d€721,€727„28€(Tenn.€App.€1953);€òòMink€v.€Majorsóó,€279€S.W.2d€714,Ï716€(Tenn.€App.€1953).€€à à€Henderson€did€not€prove€the€difference€inÏvalue€immediately€before€and€immediately€after€construction.€€Thus,€thereÏwas€no€proof€as€to€the€point€in€time€when€the€property€was€allegedlyÏdamaged€by€$6,500.00.€€In€òòHaynes€v.€Cumberland€Builders,€Inc.óó,€546€S.W.2dÏ228€(Tenn.€App.€1977),€this€Court€held€that€evidence€regarding€theÏdifference€in€value€is€to€be€made€at€a€time€certain.€€Specifically,€thisÏCourt€held€that€the€party€seeking€damages€has€the€burden€of€proving€".€.€.Ïboth€values€applied€in€the€formula€which€measures€his€general€damages,Ïthe€actual€value€of€the€property€at€the€time€of€the€contract€and€the€valueÏof€the€property€if€it€had€been€as€it€was€represented€to€him."€€òòId.óó€at€233„34.€€Ìà àAs€noted,€the€record€is€lacking€in€proof€as€to€the€value€of€propertyÏimmediately€before€and€immediately€after€the€driveway€was€constructed.€Ìà àWe€hold€that€on€the€record€in€this€case,€Hendersonððs€testimony€as€œthe›Ïproperty€owner€of€the€loss€of€value€to€the€property€is€pure€speculation,Ïunsupported€by€even€a€modicum€of€substantive€evidence€and€amounts€toÏnothing€more€than€mere€conjecture.€€The€evidence,€or€lack€thereof,Ïpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€$6,500.00€damages€andÏis€reversed€as€we€are€required€to€do€under€Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.Ìà àBeech€maintains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€find€that€theÍparties,€òòi.e.óó,€Henderson€and€Beech,€had€entered€into€an€oral€contractÏproviding€for€liquidated€damages€of€$700.00€if€repair€of€the€footprintsÏfailed€to€satisfactorily€cure€the€defect.€€We€think€this€issue€is€moot€inÏconsideration€of€the€disallowance€by€this€Court€of€the€damages€awarded€toÏHenderson€by€the€trial€judge.€€Nevertheless,€we€would€simply€point€outÏthat€although€Beech€strenuously€argued€this€issue€before€the€trial€court,Ïthe€chancellor€did€not€award€the€$700.00€to€Henderson€in€its€judgment.€€InÏshort,€by€clear€and€logical€implication,€the€trial€court€denied€BeechððsÏcontention€when€it€awarded€Henderson€$6,500.00€based€solely€on€herÏtestimony€as€to€damages.€€This€issue€is€denied€for€the€reasons€stated.€€Ìà àHenderson€asserts€that€the€judgment€awarded€to€Beech€should€be€setÏaside€because,€òòinter€aliaóó,€the€cost€of€repairing€the€defective€drivewayÏexceeded€the€contract€price.€€In€support€of€this€contention,€HendersonÏcites€two€cases,€òòEstate€of€Jessee€v.€Whiteóó,€633€S.W.2d€767€(Tenn.€App.Ï1982)€and€òòWilhite€v.€Brownsville€Concrete€Co.,€Inc.óó,€798€S.W.2d€772€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1990).€€Examination€of€these€cases€reveals€that€while€persuasive,Ïthey€are€not€controlling.€€Both€cases€involved€instances€in€which€theÏconstruction€resulted€in€a€product€that€was€òòtotally€inadequateóó€(emphasisÏours)€for€the€purpose€intended,€òòi.e.óó,€a€driveway€in€òòEstate€of€Jesseeóó€and€aÏswimming€pool€in€òòWilhiteóó.€€Such€is€not€the€case€here.€€It€would€appear€thatÍthe€driveway€is€structurally€sound€and€has€been€used€by€Henderson€for€itsÏintended€purpose€for€the€last€two€and€a€half€years.€€Accordingly,€we€findÏAppellee's€argument€meritless.€€Further,€we€have€carefully€examined€theÏrecord€in€this€cause€and€we€find€no€evidence€whatsoever€of€cost€of€repairsÏto€the€driveway€to€support€Hendersonððs€contention.€€This€issue€is€denied.€€ÌÌà@ àò òPRE„JUDGMENT€INTERESTà àÌà àó óBeech€is€asking€this€Court€to€grant€pre„judgment€interest€pursuantÏto€T.C.A.€Ô€&ÔððÔ€Ô€47„14„123€(1979).€€Pre„judgment€interest,€as€an€equitableÏprinciple,€has€long€been€held€by€the€law€of€Tennessee€to€be€within€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòFisher€v.€Klippstatteróó,€689€S.W.2d€870,Ï871€(Tenn.€App.€1985);€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€850€S.W.2d€439,Ï446€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€trial€court€refused€Beechððs€prayer€for€pre„judgmentÏinterest€and€we€will€not€say€that€it€abused€its€discretion€in€doing€so.€€Ìà àJudgment€is€awarded€to€Beech€in€the€amount€of€$8,380.00€withoutÏpre„judgment€interest.€€Costs€are€taxed€against€the€Appellee€HendersonÏfor€which€let€execution€issue€if€necessary.€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€execution€of€the€judgment€of€this€Court.ò òÌÌà àó óÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌ