ÿWPCº* 3rø ¶e¿S±Ôðòå¾jj )-O©u;ˆQíMÍžô4(ÅoÌVPCŒ¿Æ³\; —d(io}âÇQßämÂ?¤¢¬ux§fÅ¢˜â™VþNBߤ±Z…¹}pk°°”V+ôOIW.çF»­}3T.‹‘rÈô4‰rRšÝæ K-·wµ>ØL-‘iÜ/ÑÝ´3‡7±VI7ÔfKõ^éñ‡å6²eîRðÒÖèäêÊ—yñ·ÚÆÌáÃCó· kšj‘`×ýã2óËi|´Ð+èjíåõHpÅ© pLØŠN&¡%†ƒPÞ/â»n_FœÙŸLdöܘt.†µ0ÿ°ä[ _uò«ñ6¢+šg‡.Ö;¥*¸`jÕÅÐLµڥèÅ”ôvçÑã9•ÕWØH²ŠÒn½û柇¥/ª*»¼a˜­í›±G¥Üoò¼nÎÊœpbuH)é:®ª²Q·doþ¶¸è‹ÒŠ¢›Sm÷Jš®Lã&i¾rNobfPA£¤~„-z=:Á2‹w\µÛí·Ï¨ä"K÷Á¶þXâ$Vß"KñåÿÕ Þ“\’5ùȃtîBö\+ÉÄö»ÐÐЃ:òÇxg*ÒâIÎÉL@åþdU:x %²¸nXÈ 04 4T h Np r nXz Ò Ú wâ æ î n­ö n­£ P n­X     % UN- #!{ œ^ ¤°n­¸emunXwÏ m×îUNö 0 D 0Dä 1( 72µ 1uççç#\U: B¹bÖÖ 72ÚÚ 0+c   1‡ooo 72ö 1‡( 72¯ 0wáá 1‡X 72ß 1‡˜ 72 ’ÒUNdUN²²²²ëUNëš99UNÓµ! ! UNÖ"Ê$#$#UNî'UN<(<( 0PŠ( D5Ú(Ú(Ú(Ú(Ú( AQ)Æ`) 0P&* 0Dv*<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX3|x«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT¼¼Œþ6X@ÉDQ¼@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓtpO'«$šŽ `X4fšŽ PXP&ÜD`s New Roman RegularXXlÜD PG;XP«$šŽ `X4fšŽ PXP«$šŽ `X4fšŽ PXP«$šŽ `X4fšŽ PXP'æ() Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0Î}\'L «$šŽ `X4fšŽ PXP«&ÜD`XXlÜD PG;XP)Ͼ¦`XXvϾ¦ P7ûXPÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(P(2@m$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(¶éCEMU]emu}AutoList1(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A))(A)##37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) Ý ƒb͸"ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€/X¥ XXXÔÔ€/ X/X¥ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€/X¥ X/ ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€21,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA„Ôó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d ù+i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.91.0UfCEKQW]cioAutoList3I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.=I.(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList4I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.AI.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList5I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. CI. ˆÝ ƒ'@m$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€GX6á XXXÔÔ€HX6á X XGX6áÔFour€years€later€in€rebuttal,€Mr.€Conway€testified:Ð ° Ðà Ø àQ.à 0 àWhat€did€you€do€when€Mr.€Joe€Harris€presented€that€document€to€you?Ð œì Ðà Ø àA.à 0 àHe€handed€it€to€me.€€I€skimmed€through€it€like€this€(indicating),€and€handed€it€Ð ˆØ Ðà Ø àà 0 àback€to€him.€€I€said,€there€is€no€reason€to€do€a€contract,€Joe,€you€already€have€Ð tÄ Ðà Ø àà 0 àone.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular áÝ ƒ'@m$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€NX6á XXXÔIt€bears€noting€that€the€ð ðstipulationðð€of€which€the€court€speaks€was€nothing€of€the€sort.€Ð ° ÐThe€substance€of€the€proposed€stipulation€was€completely€contrary€to€the€substance€of€theÐ œì Ðevidence€proposed€by€Defendants€below.€€Thus,€no€one€would€stipulate€to€the€stipulation.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ'@m$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€QX6á XXXÔSaid€order€of€the€Chancery€court€was€vacated€by€order€of€this€Court,€Appeal€No.€01„A„Ð ° Ð01„9511„CH„00512,€in€connection€with€the€parties€withdrawal€of€appeal€from€the€originalÐ œì Ðarbitration€mandate.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular «Ý ƒ'@m$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€TX6á XXXÔAppellant€William€Morris€raises€several€issues€on€appeal€which€in€effect€are€mootedÐ ° Ðin€retrial.€€Of€these€are€the€questions€regarding€the€surprise€nature€of€testimony€from€JeffreyÐ œì ÐÔ_ÔBealsÔ_Ô€the€numerous€complaints€regarding€the€preliminary€court€order,€argument€and€juryÐ ˆØ Ðinstructions.€€Since€this€court€reverses€the€partial€summary€judgment,€the€resolution€of€theseÐ tÄ Ðaforementioned€issues€would€be€unnecessary.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ÀÝ ƒ'@m$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  Óà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€WX6á XXXÔThe€court€below€expressly€found€the€burden€of€proof€with€regard€to€statutoryÐ ° Ðcontractual€interference€to€be€by€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Apparently€questions€B3„B7Ð œì Ðon€the€jury€verdict€form€were€for€the€purposes€of€establishing€what€the€court€believed€was€theÐ ˆØ Ðappropriate€standard€for€the€violation€of€section€47„50„109.€€The€final€question€on€the€form€wasÐ tÄ Ðanswered€in€the€negative€and€reads€as€follows:Ð `° ÐÌà8 Ø àÔ€XX6á X XWX6áÔPUNITIVE€DAMAGESÐ8 ˆØ ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà8 Ø àIf€you€awarded€[sic]€answered€ð ðYesðð€to€questions€3€through€7€and€found€thatÐ  ` ÐBuddy€Lee€had€suffered€loss€as€a€proximate€result€of€the€actions€of€WilliamÐ ü L  ÐMorris€Agency€in€response€to€question€7,€do€you€find€that€Buddy€Lee€has€shownÐ è 8  Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€William€Morris€Agency€acted€recklessly,Ð Ô$  Ðintentionally,€fraudulently€or€maliciously?(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3͸$££Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý2222)ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3͸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ„°ÒØØØØÔ€¼Ô;»XXÔÔ€¼—K»»¼Ô;ÔÒ°ÒÑÜ°ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ8€&S>&XXdìdÈ8ÑÓ*„°Œ ¸ ˜X°œX*Óßx€`.[B2.jz)r`  `€€@ÿEž"` 8ttxPÖ°( r xßÔ_ÔBUDDY€LEE€ATTRACTIONS,€à  à)Ð ° ÐINC.,à Œ àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð Â ÐÓ9„°‚X‚„xX„°Œ ¸ ˜X9Óà ` àà  à)à œ àAppeal€No.Ð Ô$ Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appellee,à  à)à œ à01„A„01„9804„CH„00185Ð æ6 Ðà ` àà  à)Ìv.à ` àà  à)à œ àDavidson€ChanceryÐ  Z Ðà ` àà  à)à œ àNo.€94C„2578Ð  l ÐWILLIAM€MORRIS€AGENCY,à  à)Ð . ~ ÐINC.,€and€JOSEPH€E.€HARRIS,à  à)Ð @  Ðà ` àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendants/Appellants.à  à)Ð d´  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓ€ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTY,ÌAT€€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ€ÓSAMUEL€D.€LIPSHIEÌSCOTT€K.€HAYNESÌLUTHER€WRIGHT,€JR.ÌBoult,€Cummings,€Conners€&€BerryÌ414€Union€Street,€Suite€1600ÌP.€O.€Box€198062ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219Ìà ` àATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLEEÌÌÌJAY€S.€BOWENÌTIMOTHY€L.€WARNOCKÌGREGORY€S.€REYNOLDSÌBowen€Riley€Warnock€&€JacobsonÌ1906€West€End€AvenueÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37203Ìà ` àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTSÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÔ‡&¼—K»»¼—KÔÔ‡&XS>X»&¼—KÔòòÐ 4:„56À ÐÔ_ÔÓ  ÓÔ#†&¼…Ô»X&X–C' #ÔÔ€& «È»&¼…ÔÔO€€P€€I€€N€€I€€O€€NóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ€ÓÌà ` àÔ€&¼…Ô»& «ÈÔDefendant,€William€Morris€Agency,€Inc.,€appeals€an€adverse€jury€verdictÐ Ð  Ðin€the€amount€of€$250,000.00,€trebled€by€the€trial€judge€under€Tennessee€CodeÐ t Ä ÐAnnotated€section€47„50„109.€€This€defendant€also€appeals€a€partial€summaryÐ  h ÐÛÛjudgment€order€granted€to€plaintiff€prior€to€the€three€week€jury€trial.Ð ¼   ÐÌÓ€ =(Uf83+ÓÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚73£?ÝÔ2UfÔÚ  ÚIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝFACTS݃73£?lÝŒÐT ` T$` T$ ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àBoth€plaintiff€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.€and€defendant€William€MorrisÐ ¨ø  ÐAgency,€Inc.€were€at€all€times€material€in€this€case,€competing€"booking€agencies"Ð Lœ Ðrepresenting€various€performing€artists€in€the€music€industry.€€Defendant,€JoeÐ ð@ ÐHarris,€was€an€experienced€booking€agent€who€was€employed€on€August€18,€1987Ð ”ä Ðby€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.€€On€this€date€both€Buddy€Lee€and€Joe€HarrisÐ 8ˆ Ðexecuted€a€document€entitled€"Conditions€of€Employment"€which€stated€inÐ Ü, Ðpertinent€part:Ð €Ð ÐÓ€Óà8 ` à5.€€In€the€event€of€cessation€of€Employeeððs€employment,€EmployeeÐ $t Ðshall€not,€during€the€period€of€two€years€immediately€followingÐ <Œ Ðcessation€of€Employeeððs€employment,€in€any€capacity€represent€anyÐ T¤ Ðartist€or€act€who€or€which€was€under€contract€to€or€in€any€wayÐ l ¼  Ðrepresented€by€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.€during€the€one„yearÐ „!Ô! Ðperiod€immediately€preceding€the€date€of€cessation€of€EmployeeððsÐ œ"ì" Ðemployment.д##` ü!` ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà ` àWhile€employed€by€Buddy€Lee,€Joe€Harris€was€"responsible€agent"€forÐ p&À!& Ðseveral€artists€including€Trisha€Yearwood,€Garth€Brooks€and€Mark€Chestnut.Ð (d#( ÐÌà ` àOn€August€18,€1993,€Joe€Harris€left€Buddy€Leeððs€employ€to€work€for€theÐ \+¬&, ÐWilliam€Morris€Agency.€€Two€days€later€Trisha€Yearwood€terminated€herÐ -P(. Ðrelationship€with€Buddy€Lee,€joining€William€Morrisðð€roster€of€represented€artists;Ð ¤.ô)0 ÐWilliam€Morris€appointed€Joe€Harris€as€Ms.€Yearwoodððs€responsible€agent€forÐ H0˜+2 Ðbooking.€Ð ì1<-4 ÐÌà ` àBuddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.,€filed€suit€on€Sep.€16,€1993,€alleging,€inter€alia,Ð 45„08 Ðbreach€of€contract€by€Joe€Harris€and€common€law€and€statutory€intentionalÐ Ø6(2: Ðcontractual€interference€on€the€part€of€William€Morris.€€In€support€of€theseÐ |8Ì3< Ðallegations€Buddy€Lee€asserted€in€pertinent€part€that:Ô‡&X–CX»&¼…ÔÔ€Ô#†&¼…Ô»X&X–C·#ÔÔ‡&X–CX»&¼…ÔÔÐ ° ÐÓ€ÓÔ#†&¼…Ô»X&X–Cú#Ôà8 ` àÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÓ  ÓCOUNT€IIÐ l¼ Ð*€*€*Ð „Ô ÐÓ†ÓÓ9„°ƒXœ ‘X„°‚X‚„xX9Óà8 ` àà ¸ à36.€€At€all€times€relevant€hereto,€William€Morris€Agency€hadÐ œ ì Ðknowledge€that€there€existed€an€employment€agreement€betweenÐ ´  ÐHarris€and€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€in€which€Harris€agreed€not€toÐ Ì  Ðrepresent€for€a€period€of€two€(2)€years€after€cessation€of€hisÐ ä 4 Ðemployment€with€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€in€any€capacity€ð ðany€artistÐ ü L  Ðor€act€who€or€which€was€under€contract€to€or€in€any€way€representedÐ d  Ðby€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.,€during€the€one€year€periodÐ ,|  Ðimmediately€preceding€the€date€of€cessation€of€[Harrisðð]Ð D”  Ðemployment.ððÐ\¬ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à37.€€In€the€alternative,€William€Morris€Agency€acted€withÐ ŒÜ Ðreckless€disregard€of€the€rights€of€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€byÐ ¤ô Ðpurposefully€failing€to€make€sufficient€or€reasonable€inquiryÐ ¼  Ðregarding€any€post„employment€restrictions€on€Harrisðð€businessÐ Ô$ Ðactivities€and€the€existence€of€the€Restrictive€Covenant.Ðì<` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à38.€€Pursuant€to€the€scheme€of€Harris€and€William€MorrisÐ l ÐAgency€to€persuade€artists€represented€by€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€atÐ 4„ Ðany€time€in€the€preceding€year€to€terminate€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€asÐ Lœ Ðtheir€talent€agency€and€engage€William€Morris€Agency€in€thatÐ d´ Ðcapacity,€as€more€fully€described€hereinabove,€William€MorrisÐ |Ì ÐAgency€intended€to€induce€Harris€to€breach€the€Agreement.Д ä` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à39.€€William€Morris€Agency,€through€its€efforts€to€representÐ Ä" Ðthe€artists€either€currently€or€formerly€represented€by€Buddy€LeeÐ Ü#, ÐAttractions,€acted€maliciously€and€in€willful€violation€of€Buddy€LeeÐ ô$D  ÐAttractionsðð€known€rights.Ð &\!` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à40.€€The€acts€of€Harris€as€described€herein€and€in€furtheranceÐ <(Œ#! Ðof€his€and€William€Morris€Agencyððs€scheme€constitute€a€breach€ofÐ T)¤$" Ðthe€Agreement.Ðl*¼%#` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à41.€€The€acts€of€William€Morris€Agency€in€inducing€Harris€toÐ œ,ì'% Ðbreach€his€Agreement€with€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€proximatelyÐ ´-)& Ðcaused€Harrisðð€breach€of€the€Agreements.ÐÌ.*'` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à42.€€As€a€direct€and€proximate€result€of€the€breach€of€theÐ ü0L,) ÐAgreement,€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€has€been€damaged€in€an€amountÐ 2d-* Ðto€be€determined€at€the€trial€of€this€action.Ð,3|.+` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à43.€€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109,€William€Morris€AgencyÐ \5¬0- Ðis€liable€in€treble€the€amount€of€damages€resulting€from€or€incidentÐ t6Ä1. Ðto€the€breach€of€the€Agreement.ÐŒ7Ü2/` ü!` ü! ÐÐ ¤8ô30 ÐÓ  ÓCOUNT€IIIÐ ° ÐÓ!%ÓÓ  Ó*€*€*Ð È ÐÓ[%Óà8 ` àà ¸ à45.€€Plaintiff€alleges€that€William€Morris€Agency€is€liableÐ à0 Ðunder€the€common€law€tort€of€inducement€of€breach€of€contract€byÐ øH Ðviolating€the€Restrictive€Covenant€for€(1)€all€damages€to€beÐ  ` Ðdetermined€at€the€trial€in€this€matter€resulting€from€and€incident€toÐ ( x ÐHarrisðð€breach€of€the€Agreement€and€(2)€punitive€damages€in€anÐ @  Ðamount€sufficient€to€punish€William€Morris€Agency€and€deter€it€andÐ X ¨ Ðothers€from€engaging€in€similar€conduct€in€the€future.Ðp À` ü!` ü! ÐÓ€.Óà ` àÌà ` àIn€defense€of€this€complaint,€both€Joe€Harris€and€William€Morris€Agency,Ð ,|  ÐInc.,€rely€on€an€alleged€1991€agreement€between€Joe€Harris€and€Buddy€LeeÐ Ð  ÐAttractions,€Inc.,€which€purportedly€superseded€the€1987€"Conditions€ofÐ tÄ ÐEmployment"€contract,€and€contained€among€other€provisions€the€following:Ð h ÐÓ€Óà8 ` à17.€€òòOther€Contracts€Replaced:óó€As€of€the€effective€date€of€thisÐ ¼  ÐAgreement,€this€Agreement€supersedes,€replaces,€and€cancels€allÐ Ô$ Ðprevious€contracts,€agreements,€and/or€arrangements€of€any€kind€orÐ ì< Ðnature€whatsoever,€whether€oral€or€written,€that€may€exist€or€mayÐ T Ðhave€existed€between€Employer€and€Employee€on€or€before€the€dateÐ l Ðof€execution€of€this€Agreement.Ð4„` ü!` ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà ` àSince€the€alleged€1991€agreement€contained€none€of€the€post„employmentÐ ð@ Ðrestrictions€appearing€in€the€1987€agreement,€defendants€assert€that€neither€ofÐ ” ä Ðthem€are€in€any€way€liable€to€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.€because€there€has€beenÐ 8"ˆ Ðneither€breach€of€contract€by€Joe€Harris€nor€inducement€to€breach€on€the€part€ofÐ Ü#,! ÐWilliam€Morris€Agency,€Inc.€Ð €%Ð # ÐÌà ` àOn€August€7,€1995,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€holding:Ð È($' ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àThe€Court€finds€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€inÐ l*¼%) Ðdispute€with€respect€to€the€validity€of€the€1987€employmentÐ „+Ô&* Ðagreement€and€that€it€is€enforceable€in€accordance€with€its€terms€asÐ œ,ì'+ Ða€matter€of€law.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€the€1987€contract€is€theÐ ´-), Ðoperative€contract€between€defendant€Harris€and€Buddy€LeeÐ Ì.*- ÐAttractions€and€that€there€are€no€valid€defenses€to€the€1987€contract.€Ð ä/4+. ÐBuddy€Lee€Attractions€is,€therefore,€entitled€to€summary€judgmentÐ ü0L,/ Ðas€a€matter€of€law€as€to€the€validity€and€effect€of€the€1987Ð 2d-0 Ðemployment€agreement€between€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€andÐ ,3|.1 Ðdefendant€Harris.ÐD4”/2` ü!` ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà ` àFollowing€a€three€week€jury€trial,€the€trial€court,€on€September€5,€1997,Ð 7P25 Ðsubmitted€the€case€to€a€jury€under€a€verdict€form€stating,€in€part,€as€follows:Ð ¤8ô37 ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àA.à ¸ àBREACH€OF€CONTRACTа` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€Court€instructs€you€that€the€1987€Conditions€ofÐ È ÐEmployment€between€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€and€Joe€Harris€was€aÐ à0 Ðvalid€contract€and€was€operative€during€the€relevant€periods€of€timeÐ øH Ðat€issue€in€this€action.€€The€Court€further€instructs€that€Joe€HarrisÐ  ` Ðbreached€the€1987€Conditions€of€Employment€when€he€representedÐ ( x ÐTrisha€Yearwood€during€his€employ€at€William€Morris€Agency.€Ð @  ÐThese€two€elements€of€Buddy€Lee€Attractions'€claim€against€theÐ X ¨ ÐEstate€of€Joe€Harris€have€been€proven,€and€you,€the€jury,€must€notÐ p À Ðconsider€these€elements.ÐˆØ ` ü!` ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà ` àIt€is€obvious€that€if€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€the€1987€contractÐ D”  Ðapplicable€as€a€matter€of€law,€rather€than€submitting€to€the€jury€for€factualÐ è8 Ðdetermination,€whether€the€1987€agreement€or€the€1991€agreement€governed€theÐ ŒÜ Ðrelationship€between€the€parties,€the€jury€verdict€can€not€stand.Ð 0€ ÐÌà ` àWe€have€determined€that€the€question€of€which€contract€controls€is€aÐ xÈ Ðquestion€of€fact€for€the€jury€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€partialÐ l Ðsummary€judgment€and€in€charging€the€jury€as€set€forth€above.Ð À ÐÌà ` àThe€first€issue€on€appeal,€as€stated€by€William€Morris€Agency,€Inc.,€is:Ð  X Ðà ` àI.€€Whether€the€lower€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€BuddyÐ ¬!ü  ÐLee€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€1991€agreement€superseded€the€1987€agreement.Ð P# " ÐÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€the€jury€trial€all€parties€labored€under€the€handicap€caused€byÐ ˜&è!& Ðthe€death€of€defendant€Joe€Harris.€€In€response€to€the€motion€for€partial€summaryÐ <(Œ#( Ðjudgment,€defendant€Joe€Harris€filed€an€extensive€affidavit€on€September€23,Ð à)0%* Ð1993.€€On€August€7,€1995,€the€trial€court€granted€partial€summary€judgment,Ð „+Ô&, Ðholding€as€a€matter€of€law€that€the€1987€contract€was€controlling.€€On€January€20,Ð (-x(. Ð1996,€Joe€Harris€died,€and€at€trial€his€estate€was€unrepresented.Ð Ì.*0 ÐÌà ` àWhile€the€intervening€death€of€Joe€Harris€may€have€presented€seriousÐ 2d-4 Ðevidentiary€problems€for€the€defendants€at€trial,€they€labored€under€no€suchÐ ¸3/6 Ðhandicap€at€the€time€of€the€partial€summary€judgment€in€August€1995.€€HisÐ \5¬08 Ðaffidavit€conforms€to€Rule€56.06€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€andÐ 7P2: Ðit,€along€with€all€other€evidence€in€the€record€at€the€time€partial€summaryÐ ¤8ô3< Ðjudgment€was€granted,€must€be€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„Ð ° Ðmoving€party,€and€all€reasonable€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€such€evidence€mustÐ T¤ Ðbe€construed€in€favor€of€the€non„moving€party.€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,€óó847€S.W.2d€208,€210Ð øH Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€If,€after€such€consideration,€a€genuine€issue€of€fact€remains€for€trial,Ð œ ì Ðor€if€there€is€doubt€as€to€whether€or€not€such€genuine€issue€remains€for€trial,€theÐ @  Ðsummary€judgment€must€be€overruled.€€òòEvco€v.€Rossóó,€528€S.W.2d€20,€24„25Ð ä 4  Ð(Tenn.€1975).Ð ˆØ  ÐÌà ` àBecause€the€granting€of€summary€judgment€involves€a€question€of€law,€theÐ Ð  Ðdecision€of€the€trial€court€is€not€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòGonzalesÐ tÄ Ðv.€Alman€Constr.€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€42,€44€(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ð h ÐÌà ` àThe€affidavit€of€Joe€Harris€of€September€23,€1993,€asserted€in€part:Ð `° ÐÓ€Óà8 ` à8.à ¸ àBuddy€Lee€called€one€day€and€I€agreed€to€return€to€Buddy€LeeÐ T ÐAttractions,€bringing€with€me€artists€Razzy€Bailey,€Mel€McDaniel,Ð l ÐHelen€Cornelius,€Joe€Stampley,€and€some€others.€€I€had€no€writtenÐ 4„ Ðemployment€agreement,€but€I€did€have€a€written€agreement€for€myÐ Lœ Ðcommissions€on€Mel€McDaniel€and€I€did€sign€the€Conditions€ofÐ d´ ÐEmployment.€Ð|Ì` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à9.à ¸ àWhile€working€at€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€I€received€a€callÐ ” ä  Ðfrom€an€old€friend€and€well„known€producer€Jerry€Kennedy.€€At€theÐ ¬!ü! Ðtime€he€was€producing€Mel€McDaniel,€among€others.€€Jerry€KennedyÐ Ä"" Ðtold€me€about€a€new€artist€named€Garth€Brooks€and€suggested€thatÐ Ü#,# ÐI€call€his€manager,€Bob€Doyle.€€I€called€Bob€and€he€and€Garth€cameÐ ô$D $ Ðto€see€me.€€They€brought€a€tape€of€Garth's,€but€Garth€said€that€heÐ  &\!% Ðwould€like€to€play€some€songs€for€me€as€well.€€I€listened€to€one€songÐ $'t"& Ðand€I€decided€I€wanted€to€book€Garth€Brooks.€€I€signed€Garth€to€aÐ <(Œ#' Ðcontract€with€the€agency€in€1988€and€have€been€his€booking€agentÐ T)¤$( Ðever€since.Ðl*¼%)` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à10.à ¸ àGarth€did€not€have€a€recording€contract€with€a€major€label€atÐ „+Ô&* Ðthe€time.€€I€called€Jim€Fogelsong€at€Capitol€Records€and€suggestedÐ œ,ì'+ Ðthat€he€have€someone€listen€to€Garth.€€It€is€my€understanding€that€JimÐ ´-), ÐFogelsong€sent€Lynn€Schultz,€then€of€Capitol€Records,€to€hear€GarthÐ Ì.*- Ðat€a€writer's€night€at€the€Bluebird€Caf€and€that€this€led€to€Garth's€firstÐ ä/4+. Ðmajor„label€contract.Ðü0L,/` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à11.à ¸ àIn€the€early€part€of€1991€Garth€came€to€see€me.€€he€discussedÐ 2d-0 Ðgenerally€his€desire€that€I€remain€his€booking€agent€and€I€assured€himÐ ,3|.1 Ðthat€I€would.€€He€said€that€he€wanted€to€make€sure€that€I€was€treatedÐ D4”/2 Ðright€and€I€told€him€that€I€was€being€paid€a€guaranteed€weekly€salaryÐ \5¬03 Ðplus€a€one€percent€commission€on€the€dates€that€I€booked.€€SomeÐ t6Ä14 Ðtime€thereafter,€Tony€Conway€told€me€that€Rusty€Jones,€Bob€Doyle,Ð Œ7Ü25 Ðand€Kerry€O'Neil€had€come€to€see€him€about€renegotiating€Garth'sÐ ¤8ô36 Ðcontract€and€that€Garth€wanted€to€pay€me€directly€a€commission€ofÐ ° Ðfive€percent€on€the€dates€that€I€booked€for€him.€€This€was€the€firstÐ È Ðtime€that€I€had€heard€any€of€the€terms€of€the€proposed€amendment€toÐ à0 ÐGarth's€contract€with€the€agency.ÐøH` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à12.à ¸ àAs€the€negotiations€for€the€amendment€proceeded,€I€talkedÐ  ` Ðseveral€times€with€Garth's€attorney,€Rusty€Jones.€€I€became€awareÐ ( x Ðthat€I€would€need€to€have€my€own€contract€with€Buddy€LeeÐ @  ÐAttractions€to€ensure€that€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€would€beÐ X ¨ Ðcontractually€obligated€to€me€and€to€make€sure€that€my€five„percentÐ p À Ðcommission€would€not€be€subject€to€a€claim€by€the€agency.€€I€askedÐ ˆØ  ÐRusty€if€he€could€prepare€the€contract€for€me,€but€he€said€thatÐ  ð  Ðbecause€he€was€Garth's€lawyer,€it€would€be€inappropriate€for€him€toÐ ¸  Ðact€for€me€and€that€I€should€have€my€regular€attorney,€Jim€Harris,Ð Ð  Ðdraft€the€agreement€for€me.Ðè8 ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à13.à ¸ àWhen€Garth's€amendment€was€completed€in€April€of€1991,€IÐ P Ðwas€asked€to€sign€it€and€I€did.€€I€then€contacted€Jim€Harris€and€askedÐ h Ðhim€to€draft€a€separate€contract€between€me€and€Buddy€LeeÐ 0€ ÐAttractions€which€would€be€consistent€with€and€would€protect€myÐ H˜ Ðinterests€in€Garth's€amendment.€€I€told€Tony€Conway€what€I€wantedÐ `° Ðas€the€terms€of€my€new€contract€and€I€advised€my€attorney,€JimÐ xÈ ÐHarris,€to€prepare€the€contract.Ðà` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à14.à ¸ àJim€Harris€drafted€a€contract€which€ensured€that€I€was€entitledÐ ¨ø Ðto€receive€the€five„percent€commission€directly€from€Garth,€specifiedÐ À Ðmy€right€to€act€as€a€consultant€and€advisor€to€other€booking€agencies,Ð Ø( Ðand€terminated€all€other€existing€agreements€between€me€and€BuddyÐ ð@ ÐLee€Attractions.€€Each€of€these€provisions€was€new€and€differentÐ  X Ðfrom€the€terms€of€the€oral€agreement€that€I€had€with€Buddy€LeeÐ  !p ÐAttractions.€€I€wanted€to€make€sure€that€the€new€contract€terminatedÐ 8"ˆ Ðall€other€existing€agreements€because€Garth€had€told€me€that€heÐ P#  Ðwanted€me€to€be€his€booking€agent€even€if€he€left€the€agency.€€I€knewÐ h$¸ Ðthat€his€amendment€gave€him€the€right€to€leave€at€any€time,€and€theÐ €%Ð  Ð1987€Conditions€of€Employment,€if€enforceable€against€me,€couldÐ ˜&è! Ðhave€restricted€my€right€to€represent€Garth.€€A€true€copy€of€theÐ °'#  Ðagreement€prepared€by€Jim€Harris€is€attached€to€this€my€affidavit€andÐ È($! Ðis€made€a€part€hereof.Ðà)0%"` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à15.à ¸ àIn€addition,€the€contract€confirmed€in€writing€my€guaranteedÐ ø*H&# Ðsalary€to€$600.00€per€week,€my€three€weeks€vacation,€my€insuranceÐ ,`'$ Ðand€sick€leave€benefits,€and€my€commission€percentage€for€artistsÐ (-x(% Ðother€than€Garth€Brooks,€which€had€been€a€part€of€my€oralÐ @.)& Ðagreement.ÐX/¨*'` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à16.à ¸ àJim€Harris€completed€my€contract€with€Buddy€Lee€AttractionsÐ p0À+( Ðin€early€June€of€1991.€€It€was€to€be€effective€on€the€first€day€of€June,Ð ˆ1Ø,) Ð1991,€and€was€to€run€for€a€term€of€two€years.€€When€Jim€HarrisÐ  2ð-* Ðdelivered€the€finished€version€of€the€contract€to€me,€I€signed€it,€tookÐ ¸3/+ Ðit€in€to€Tony€Conway,€and€left€it€with€him.€€Shortly€thereafter,€TonyÐ Ð4 0, Ðcame€to€me€and€said€that€he€could€not€take€it€to€Buddy€Lee€right€thenÐ è581- Ðbecause€if€he€took€it€to€him€now€he€would€cry€and€he€was€not€in€goodÐ 7P2. Ðhealth.€€He€said€he€did€not€want€anybody€even€to€call€Buddy€Ô_ÔbecauseÐ 8h3/ Ðof€the€state€of€Buddy's€health.€€He€kept€the€agreement€and€did€notÐ ° Ðreturn€it€to€me.€€He€did€not€say€that€either€he€or€Buddy€Lee€had€anyÐ È Ðobjection€to€the€contract.€€I€left€with€the€impression€that€Tony€wouldÐ à0 Ðdiscuss€the€contract€[with]€Buddy€Lee€and€that€Tony€would€sign€theÐ øH Ðcontract€later.Ð `` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à17.à ¸ àI€continued€my€work€at€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€under€the€termsÐ ( x Ðof€my€new€contract€and€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€honored€all€of€itsÐ @  Ðprovisions.€€I€received€my€guaranteed€salary€of€$600.00€per€week,€IÐ X ¨ Ðtook€three€weeks€vacation,€and€I€gave€advice€to€other€agencies,Ð p À Ðparticularly€with€respect€to€booking€opening€acts,€but€I€received€noÐ ˆØ  Ðcompensation€for€this€advice.€€My€thought€was€that€by€giving€properÐ  ð  Ðadvice€to€other€agencies€about€dates€for€opening€acts,€I€was€helpingÐ ¸  ÐBuddy€Lee€Attractions€put€together€a€more€attractive€package€for€itsÐ Ð  Ðown€acts.€€I€began€to€receive€my€five„percent€commission€directlyÐ è8  Ðfrom€Garth€Brooks.ÐP` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à18.à ¸ àBecause€Buddy€Lee€Attractions€was€honoring€the€terms€of€theÐ h Ðnew€contract,€I€did€not€think€much€about€Buddy€Lee's€not€returningÐ 0€ Ða€signed€copy€of€the€contract.€€Instead,€I€continued€to€workÐ H˜ Ðthroughout€and€past€the€expiration€of€the€term€of€the€new€contract.€Ð `° ÐNeither€Buddy€Lee€nor€Tony€Conway€ever€returned€a€signed€copy€ofÐ xÈ Ðthe€contract€to€me.€€But,€at€no€time€prior€to€my€resignation€did€BuddyÐ à ÐLee,€Tony€Conway€or€anyone€else€ever€indicate€to€me€anyÐ ¨ø Ðdisagreement€with€the€terms€of€the€new€contract.€€And,€at€no€timeÐ À Ðprior€to€my€resignation€did€Buddy€Lee€or€Tony€ever€indicate€to€meÐ Ø( Ðthat€the€new€contract€was€not€in€full€force€and€effect.Ðð@` ü!` ü! ÐÌÌÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚73£®cÝÔ2UfÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝPARTIAL€SUMMARY€JUDGMENT€AS€TO€THE€EFFECT€OF€THE€1987Ð 8"ˆ ÐCONTRACT.݃73£®cÛcÝŒÐP# ` T$` T$ ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓ€ÓÓÌL€Óà ` àThe€lengthy€and€detailed€"Employment€Agreement"€bearing€the€date€ofÐ €%Ð  ÐJune€1991€was€never€signed€by€anyone€representing€Buddy€Lee.€€It€is€likewise€trueÐ ë&;" Ðthat€Buddy€Lee€vehemently€denies€that€the€1991€purported€agreement€was€everÐ V(¦#  Ðaccepted€by€Buddy€Lee€and€asserts€that€the€parties€continued€to€operate€solelyÐ Á)%! Ðunder€the€"Conditions€of€Employment"€document€of€August€18,€1987.€€Indeed,€byÐ ,+|&" Ðaffidavit€of€September€27,€1993,€Tony€Conway€of€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.Ð —,ç'# Ðasserts€that€he€could€not€remember€ever€receiving€the€original€or€a€copy€of€theÐ .R)$ Ðalleged€1991€agreement€prior€to€August€26,€1993,€after€Joe€Harris€had€resignedÐ m/½*% Ðfrom€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.€€He€further€denied€that€he€had€ever€discussedÐ Ø0(,& Ðsuch€an€agreement€with€Joe€Harris.׃F×Ý ƒ(#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð C2“-' ÐÓ€ÌLÞdÓÌà ` àFaced€with€this€swearing€contest€between€Joe€Harris€and€Tony€Conway,€weÐ T¤ Ðnext€look€to€the€conduct€of€the€parties€subsequent€to€June€1991.€Ð øH ÐÌà ` à"It€is€a€general€principle€of€the€law€of€contracts€that,€while€an€assent€to€anÐ @  Ðoffer€is€a€requisite€to€the€formation€of€an€agreement,€yet€such€assent€is€a€conditionÐ ä 4  Ðof€the€mind,€and€may€be€either€express€or€evidenced€by€circumstances€from€whichÐ ˆØ  Ðthe€assent€may€be€inferred."€€òòCole„McIntyre„Ô_ÔNorfleetÔ_Ô€Co.€v.€Hollowayóó,€141€Tenn.Ð ,|  Ð679,€214€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€817,€818€(1919);€òòsee€also€Province€v.€Mitchellóó,€44€Tenn.€App.€115,Ð Ð  Ð124,€312€S.W.2d€861,€865€(Tenn.€App.€1958)€and€òòÔ_ÔYarbroughÔ_Ô€v.€Stilesóó,€717€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ð886,€888€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1986).Ð h ÐÌà ` àThe€"Conditions€of€Employment"€document€of€August€18,€1987€provided,Ð `° Ðin€part,€as€follows:€€"7.€€All€commission€checks€from€artists€shall€be€made€payableÐ T Ðto€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc."Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ` àThe€alleged€"Employment€Agreement"€of€June€1991€provided€in€part€as€toÐ ð@  Ðthe€commission€income€of€Joe€Harris:Ð ” ä" ÐÓ€ÓÓ3„°„X ‘X„°ƒXœ ‘X3Óà8 ` àà ¸ à3.3à  àAn€amount€equivalent€to€5%€(five€percent)€of€the€totalÐ 8"ˆ$ Ðgross€compensation€paid€to€the€artist€known€as€Garth€Brooks€forÐ P# % Ðeach€personal€performance€engagement€or€personal€appearanceÐ h$¸& Ðengagement€which€is€performed€by€Garth€Brooks€and€for€whichÐ €%Ð ' Ðemployer€is€entitled€to€receive€a€commission.И&è!(` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ à3.4à  àNotwithstanding€anything€to€the€contrary€appearingÐ °'#) Ðelsewhere€in€this€agreement,€Garth€Brooks€is€authorized€to€pay€theÐ È($* Ðaforesaid€percentage€to€employee€directly€for€each€personalÐ à)0%+ Ðperformance€engagement€or€personal€appearance€engagement€whichÐ ø*H&, Ðis€performed€by€Garth€Brooks€and€for€which€employer€is€entitled€toÐ ,`'- Ðreceive€a€commission.Ð(-x(.` ü!` ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà ` àThe€artist€Garth€Brooks€is€not€mentioned€in€the€1987€agreement€and€theÐ ä/4+1 Ðdirect€payment€provision€from€Garth€Brooks€to€Joe€Harris€is€inconsistent€with€theÐ ˆ1Ø,3 Ð1987€agreement€but€altogether€consistent€with€the€1991€agreement.Ð ,3|.5 ÐÌÌÐ 8h3; Ðà ` àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€general€compensation€paid€to€Joe€Harris€was€theÐ ° ÐÔ_Ôamount€set€forth€in€the€1991€agreement€and€not€the€amount€set€forth€in€the€1987Ð T¤ Ðagreement.€€His€salary€under€the€1987€agreement€was€$500.00€per€week.€€HisÐ øH Ðsalary€under€the€1991€agreement€was€$600.00€per€week.€€It€is€undisputed€that€hisÐ œ ì Ðsalary€was€paid€in€the€amount€set€forth€in€the€1991€agreement.Ð @  ÐÌà ` àFrom€the€affidavit€of€Joe€Harris€and€the€actions€of€the€parties€subsequent€toÐ ˆØ  ÐJune€1991,€it€may€be€inferred€that€Buddy€Lee€had€assented€to€the€1991€agreement.€Ð ,|  ÐIt€might€also€be€inferred€that€the€conduct€of€the€parties€was€consistent€with€theÐ Ð  Ð1987€agreement€and€that€the€change€in€base€salary€was€coincidental€to€theÐ tÄ Ðprovisions€of€the€1991€contract.€€It€may€likewise€be€inferred€that€the€5%Ð h Ðcommission€directly€paid€to€Joe€Harris€was€not€due€to€assent€by€Buddy€Lee€to€theÐ ¼  Ð1991€agreement€but€rather€in€conformity€with€the€insistence€of€Garth€Brooks€inÐ `° Ðhis€own€contract€with€Buddy€Lee.€€On€summary€judgment€motion,€however,€suchÐ T Ðinferences€address€themselves€to€the€trier€of€fact,€not€the€trier€of€law.€€òòSee€Byrd€v.Ð ¨ø ÐHallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€216€(Tenn.€1993).Ð Lœ ÐÌà ` à"When€a€contract€between€two€parties€which€is€contemplated€to€be€signedÐ ” ä" Ðby€both€is€reduced€to€writing€and€signed€by€only€one€of€them,€but€accepted€by€theÐ 8"ˆ$ Ðother,€it€becomes€in€contemplation€of€the€law,€a€written€binding€contract€on€both."€Ð Ü#,& ÐòòCarter€v.€Richardsóó,€No.€116,€1990€WL€209330,€at€*€3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€12,Ð €%Ð ( Ð1990);€òòSouthern€Motor€Car€Co.€v.€Talliaferroóó,€14€Tenn.€App.€276,€280€(1931).Ð $'t"* ÐÌà ` àThe€evidence€offered€by€the€defendants€is€sufficient€under€the€òòEvco€v.€RossóóÐ l*¼%. Ðstandards€to€present€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€or€not€the€1991Ð ,`'0 Ðagreement€superseded€the€1987€agreement,€thus€freeing€the€defendants€from€theÐ ´-)2 Ðnon„compete€provisions€of€the€1987€agreement.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€its€grantÐ X/¨*4 Ðof€partial€summary€judgment€on€this€issue€and€such€error€is€fatal€to€the€ensuingÐ ü0L,6 Ðjury€verdict.Ð  2ð-8 ÐÌÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚73£¤}ÝÔ2UfÔÚ  ÚIIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝJIM€HARRISðð€TESTIMONY݃73£¤}Ñ}ÝŒÐè581<` T$` T$ ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àØ! !ØIn€conjunction€with€William€Morrisðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,€and,Ð Œ7Ü2> Ðapparently€in€opposition€to€Buddy€Leeððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€regardingÐ ° Ðthe€applicability€of€the€1987€contract,€Jim€Harris,€attorney€for€Joe€Harris,€filed€aÐ T¤ Ðmotion€to€be€relieved€as€counsel€on€July€20,€1995.€€This€motion€was€couched€inÐ øH Ðterms€of€protection€for€client€Harris.€€The€motion€states:Ð œ ì ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àIn€its€response€to€William€Morrisðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,Ð @  ÐBuddy€Lee€denied€the€existence€of€the€1991€contract€and€accusedÐ X ¨  ÐDefendant€Harris€of€knowingly€violating€the€1987€restrictiveÐ p À  Ðcovenant€and€William€Morris€of€maliciously€and€intentionallyÐ ˆØ  Ðinducing€Defendant€Harris€to€breach€the€restrictive€covenant.€€It€nowÐ  ð  Ðappears€that€Defendant€Harrisðð€intentions,€state€of€mind,€andÐ ¸  Ðcredibility€could€be€at€issue€with€respect€to€the€circumstances€of€hisÐ Ð  Ðtermination€of€his€employment€from€Buddy€Lee€Attractions,€Inc.€andÐ è8 Ðhis€subsequent€employment€by€William€Morris.ÐP` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àDR€5„102(A)€of€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility€states€that,Ð 0€ Ðð ðIf,€after€undertaking€employment€in€contemplated€or€pendingÐ H˜ Ðlitigation,€a€lawyer€learns€or€it€is€obvious€that€he€...€ought€to€be€calledÐ `° Ðas€a€witness€on€behalf€of€his€client,€he€shall€withdraw€from€theÐ xÈ Ðconduct€of€the€trial€...€except€that€he€may€continue€the€representationÐ à Ðand€he€...€may€testify€in€the€circumstances€enumerated€on€DR€5„101Ð ¨ø Ð(B)(1)€through€(4).ðð€€Counsel€can€no€longer€say€with€certainty€thatÐ À Ðhis€potential€testimony€on€behalf€of€Defendant€Harris€is€subject€toÐ Ø( Ðthe€exceptions€provided€in€DR€5„101(1)€or€(2).€€Therefore,€DR€5„Ð ð@ Ð102(A)€leaves€counsel€with€no€choice€but€to€withdraw€fromÐ  X Ðparticipation€on€behalf€of€Defendant€Harris€in€the€trial€of€this€case.€Ð !p` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓ€‘€ÓÌà ` àFrom€this€Courtððs€gleaning€of€the€unusually€duplicative€record,€this€appearsÐ ô$D  Ðto€be€the€first€time€Jim€Harris€moved€to€withdraw€as€counsel€for€Joe€Harris.€€TheÐ ˜&è!" Ðabove€motion€is€cited€in€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€August€7,€1995,€granting€BuddyÐ <(Œ#$ ÐLeeððs€summary€judgment€as€to€the€validity€of€the€1987€contract€among€otherÐ à)0%& Ðissues.€€With€regard€to€this€motion,€the€court€found:Ð „+Ô&( ÐÓ€Óà8 ` à4.à ¸ àJames€H.€Harris,€III,€counsel€for€defendant€Harris,€seeks€toÐ (-x(* Ðwithdraw€as€counsel€of€record€for€defendant€Harris€in€this€action.€Ð @.)+ ÐThe€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€based€on€the€record€before€the€CourtÐ X/¨*, Ðand€the€Courtððs€familiarity€with€the€record,€any€testimony€given€byÐ p0À+- ÐJames€H.€Harris,€III,€would€be€cumulative€and€uncontested.€€TheÐ ˆ1Ø,. ÐCourt€further€finds€that€any€testimony€sought€to€be€given€by€JamesÐ  2ð-/ ÐH.€Harris,€III,€could€easily€be€the€subject€matter€of€a€stipulationÐ ¸3/0 Ðbetween€the€parties.€€The€Court€thereby€finds€that€it€is€not€necessaryÐ Ð4 01 Ðfor€James€H.€Harris€III,€to€be€relieved€as€counsel€of€record€forÐ è5812 ÐDefendant€Harris€in€this€action.€€Additionally,€the€Court€finds€thatÐ 7P23 Ðsince€any€testimony€to€be€given€by€James€H.€Harris,€III€would€beÐ 8h34 Ðcumulative€and€uncontested,€James€H.€Harris,€III€should€not€beÐ ° Ðallowed€to€testify€on€behalf€of€his€client,€defendant€Harris,€orÐ È ÐWilliam€Morris.€€In€this€regard,€the€Court€finds€that€the€prejudice€toÐ à0 ÐBuddy€Lee€Attractions€far€outweighs€any€probative€value€of€allowingÐ øH ÐJames€H.€Harris€to€testify€in€person€versus€some€stipulation€or€otherÐ  ` Ðmeans€of€introducing€the€cumulative€and€uncontested€evidence€thatÐ ( x Ðwould€be€the€subject€matter€of€such€testimony.׃L×Ý ƒ(#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð@ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÌÓ€Óà ` àOn€the€first€trial€date,€apparently€foreseeing€summary€judgment€to€hisÐ ˆØ  Ðclient's€detriment€concerning€the€1987€contract,€attorney€Harris€moved€on€behalfÐ ,|  Ðof€client€Harris€to€continue€the€action€in€Chancery€Court€pending€results€ofÐ Ð  Ðarbitration.€€This€motion€was€granted€by€the€court€below€in€an€order€enteredÐ tÄ ÐAugust€18,€1995.׃OT×Ý ƒ(#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€most€complicating€factor€regarding€the€necessity€andÐ h Ðviability€of€James€Harris€as€a€witness€occurred€during€the€pendency€of€theÐ ¼  Ðresulting€arbitration€and€appeal€from€that€original€order.€€On€January€20,€1996,Ð `° ÐJoseph€E.€Harris,€the€lightning€rod€of€this€unfortunately€lengthy€litigation,€the€manÐ T Ðwho€represented€one€of€the€most€popular€music€acts€of€all€time,€died€at€the€age€ofÐ ¨ø Ð57.€€With€that€passing€went€the€only€party€besides€Tony€Conway€of€Buddy€LeeÐ Lœ ÐAttractions€and€Jim€Harris€who€had€any€first€hand€knowledge€of€the€negotiationsÐ ð@ Ðinvolving€the€alleged€1991€contract.€€Yet€when€attorney€Harris€moved€the€courtÐ ” ä Ðto€reconsider€its€1995€order,€that€motion€was€rebuffed.€€Although€the€action€of€theÐ 8"ˆ! Ðcourt€below€on€reconsideration€is€not€memorialized€by€written€order€in€the€recordÐ Ü#,# Ðbefore€this€Court,€the€transcript€of€the€pre„trial€proceedings€of€August€19,€1996,Ð €%Ð % Ðreads€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:Ð $'t"' ÐÓ€!ÓÓ3„°ƒXÀ ‘X„°„X ‘X3Óà8 ` àà ¸ àTHE€COURT:à À àWell,€Mr.€Harris€canððt€go€in€and€out€of€„„ÐÈ($)` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àMR.€BOWEN:à À àNo,€sir.Ðà)0%*` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àTHE€COURT:à À à„„€of€the€trial.Ðø*H&+` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àMR.€BOWEN:à À àThatððs€up€to€him.€€I€donððt€believe€heððsÐ ,`', Ðplanning€to€do€that.€€I€believe€heððs€asked€to€be€excused,€and€if€thatððsÐ (-x(- Ðthe€case,€heððs€fair€game€as€a€witness.Ð@.).` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àTHE€COURT:à À àNo€heððs€not€fair€game€because€heððs€goingÐ X/¨*/ Ðto€be€representing€the€Estate€of€Joe€Harris,€so€itððs€not€necessary€forÐ p0À+0 Ðhim€to€stay€in€the€courtroom€every€day.€€Thatððs€his€civil€case.€€Itððs€upÐ ° Ðto€him€if€he€wants€to€come€in€and€out,€but€that€doesnððt€relieve€him€ofÐ È Ðany€involvement€in€the€case,€and€I€wonððt€set€my€ruling€aside.€€IððllÐ à0 Ðstay€with€my€ruling.ÐøH` ü!` ü! ÐÓ  Ó*€*€*€€Ð  ` ÐÓO›Óà8 ` àà ¸ àMR.€HARRIS:à À àAs€Your€Honor€may€recall,€when€the€„„€theÐ ( x Ðquestion€of€my€possible€participation€as€a€witness€first€came€up,€IÐ @  Ðmoved€the€Court€to€be€allowed€to€withdraw€as€counsel,€and€based€onÐ X ¨ Ðthe€ethical€consideration€which€requires€that,€and€that€motion€wasÐ p À Ðdenied,€so€Iððm€not€withdrawn€as€counsel.€€However,€I€see€no€reasonÐ ˆØ  Ðfor€my€party€to€be€here€and€participate€in€something€that€really€hasÐ  ð  Ðlittle€to€offer.и ` ü!` ü! ÐÓ  ÓÌ*€*€*€€Ð è8  ÐÓÜÓà8 ` àà ¸ àTHE€COURT:à À àIððm€not€going€to€permit€Mr.€Harris€toÐ P Ðwithdraw€from€this€case.€€If€he€wants€to€go€in€and€out€at€differentÐ h Ðtimes,€he€is€free€to€do€so,€but€heððs€still€an€attorney€of€record€for€theÐ 0€ ÐEstate.ÐH˜` ü!` ü! ÐÓ€%ÓÌà ` àThe€next€major€discussion€involving€James€Harris€appears€in€the€form€ofÐ T Ðan€offer€of€proof.€€Although€the€1991€agreement€was€discussed€in€the€presence€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€jury,€Mr.€Harris€was€never€allowed€to€testify€as€to€the€circumstancesÐ Lœ Ðsurrounding€the€alleged€1991€agreement,€as€such€testimony€might€bear€on€theÐ ð@ Ðintentions,€state€of€mind€and€motives€of€Joe€Harris€or€representatives€of€theÐ ” ä ÐWilliam€Morris€Agency.€€The€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€allow€attorney€Harris€toÐ 8"ˆ Ðtestify€was€apparently€grounded€in€Rule€403€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€EvidenceÐ Ü#,  Ðand€in€the€fact€that€James€Harris€was€an€attorney€for€one€of€the€parties€involvedÐ €%Ð " Ðin€the€case€at€bar.€€Ð $'t"$ ÐÌà ` àRule€403€provides€for€the€exclusion€of€relevant€evidence€the€probative€valueÐ l*¼%( Ðof€which€is€outweighed€by,€òòinter€aliaóó,€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Tenn.€R.Ð ,`'* ÐEvid.€403.€Ô#†¼>r»»&¼…Ô #ÔThe€original€motion€to€withdraw€filed€by€Attorney€Harris€was€groundedÐ ´-), Ðin€Disciplinary€Rule€5„102.€€The€application€of€Disciplinary€Rule€5„102€is€guidedÐ s/Ã*. Ðby€Ethical€Consideration€5„9,€which€provides€as€follows:Ð 1^,0 ÐÓ€^ŸÓà8 ` àEC€5„9.€€Occasionally€a€lawyer€is€called€upon€to€decide€in€aÐ ©2ù-2 Ðparticular€case€whether€the€lawyer€will€be€a€witness€or€an€advocate.€Ð »3 /3 ÐIf€a€lawyer€is€both€counsel€and€witness,€the€lawyer€becomes€moreÐ Í404 Ðeasily€impeachable€for€interest€and€thus€may€be€a€less€effectiveÐ ß5/15 Ðwitness.€€Conversely,€the€opposing€counsel€may€be€handicapped€inÐ ñ6A26 Ðchallenging€the€credibility€of€the€lawyer€when€the€lawyer€Ô_ÔalsoÐ 8S37 Ðappears€as€an€advocate€in€the€case.€€An€advocate€who€becomes€aÐ ° Ðwitness€is€in€the€unseemly€and€ineffective€position€of€arguing€theÐ Â Ðadvocate's€own€credibility.€€The€roles€of€an€advocate€and€of€a€witnessÐ Ô$ Ðare€inconsistent.Ðæ6` ü!` ü! ÐÌà ` àTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€Ô_ÔECÔ_Ô€5„9.Ð  Z ÐÓ€ÓÌà ` àIt€is€clear€that€James€Harris€would€be€a€fact€witness€in€the€trial€below.€€AtÐ ·  Ðtrial€Buddy€Lee€was€willing€to€allow€Mr.€Harris€to€read€portions€of€his€deposition.€Ð R¢  ÐÔ‡&¼…Ô»»¼>rÔÌà ` àTennesseeððs€application€of€Rule€403,€parallels€the€application€of€the€federalÐ ‘á  Ðrule.€€òòSee€State€v.€Banks,óó€564€S.W.2d€947,€951€(Tenn.€1978).€€There€is€no€questionÐ 5… Ðthat€to€properly€exclude€relevant€testimony,€the€trial€court€must€find€òòunfairóóÐ Ù) Ðprejudice.€€Even€if€one€could€say€that€the€reasons€for€admitting€James€HarrisððÐ }Í Ðtestimony€were€questionable,€this€court€finds€persuasive€the€Sixth€CircuitððsÐ !q Ðdiscussion€in€the€case€of€òòDoe€v.€Claiborne€County:Ð Å ÐóóÓ€Óà8 ` à...ð ðUnfair€prejudiceðð€means€the€òòundueóó€tendency€to€suggest€a€decisionÐ i¹ Ðbased€on€improper€considerations;€it€ð ðdoes€not€mean€the€damage€toÐ Ñ Ða€[partyððs]€case€that€results€from€the€legitimate€probative€force€of€theÐ ™é Ðevidence.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Bonds,€óó12€F.3d€540,€567€(6th€Cir.1993)Ð ± Ð(internal€quotation€marks€and€citations€omitted).€€Indeed,€ð ð[Ô_Ôv]igorousÔ_ÔÐ É Ðcross„examination,€presentation€of€contrary€evidence,€and€a€carefulÐ á 1 Ðinstruction€on€the€burden€of€proof€are€the€traditional€and€appropriateÐ ù!I  Ðmeans€of€attacking€shaky€but€admissible€evidence.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔDaubertÔ_Ô€v.Ð #a! ÐÔ_ÔMerrellÔ_Ô€Dow€Pharmaceuticals,€Inc.,€óó509€U.S.€579,€596,€113€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.Ð )$y" Ð2786,€2798,€125€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d€469€(1993).ÐA%‘ #` ü!` ü! ÐÌòòDoe€v.€Claiborne€County,€Tenn.,€óó103€F.3d€495,€515€(6th€Cir.€1996).Ð q'Á"% ÐÌÌÓ€Óà ` àJim€Harrisðð€testimony€regarding€the€1991€contract€was€probative€of€theÐ ¹* &( Ðpossible€existence€of€an€agreement€between€Buddy€Lee€and€Harris,€as€well€as€theÐ ],­'* Ðintent€of€Joe€Harris€and€the€William€Morris€representatives€relative€to€Ô_ÔtortiousÔ_ÔÐ .Q), Ðinterference€and€inducement.€€This€testimony€goes€to€the€very€heart€of€theÐ ¥/õ*. Ðdefendants'€case€and€to€disallow€it€deprives€the€defendants€of€fact€testimony€ofÐ I1™,0 Ðprobative€value.€€The€fact€that€it€may€damage€the€plaintiff's€case€involves€theÐ í2=.2 Ð"legitimate€force"€of€his€testimony.€€It€is€not€"unfair€prejudice"€under€Rule€403.€Ð ‘4á/4 ÐIn€this€case€cross€examination€of€Jim€Harris€is€available€as€with€any€other€witnessÐ 56…16 Ðand€"...[Ô_Ôo]nÔ_Ô€retrial,€upon€introduction,€the€trial€judge€should€give€a€carefullyÐ Ù7)38 ÐÔ_Ôdetailed€limiting€instruction€advising€the€jury€as€to€the€use€of€the€evidence.ðð€Ð ° ÐòòWoodson€v.€Porter€Brown€Limestone€Co.,óó€916€S.W.2d€896,€908€(Tenn.€1996).Ð T¤ ÐÌà ` àAppellee€would€suggest€that€such€exclusion€was€suitable€not€only€becauseÐ œ ì Ðof€unfair€prejudice,€but€also€for€the€surprising€nature€of€the€motion€to€reconsiderÐ @  Ðargued€on€the€trial€date.€€Since€the€case€must€be€retried€because€of€the€erroneousÐ ä 4  Ðgrant€of€partial€summary€judgment,€such€surprise,€if€any,€no€longer€exists.Ð ˆØ  Ѐ€€Ð ,|  ÐIV.€€TREBLE€DAMAGESÐ Ð  Ðà ` àThe€final€issue€on€this€appeal€regards€the€trial€courtððs€actions€concerningÐ tÄ Ðtreble€damages.׃R×Ý ƒ(#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рh ÐÌà ` àThe€statute€under€which€treble€damages€were€sought,€Tennessee€CodeÐ `° ÐAnnotated€section€47„50„109,€provides€as€follows:Ð T ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person,€by€inducement,€persuasion,Ð ¨ø Ðmisrepresentation,€or€other€means,€to€induce€or€procure€the€breach€orÐ À Ðviolation,€refusal€or€failure€to€perform€any€lawful€contract€by€anyÐ Ø( Ðparty€thereto;€€and,€in€every€case€where€a€breach€or€violation€of€suchÐ ð@ Ðcontract€is€so€procured,€the€person€so€procuring€or€inducing€the€sameÐ  X  Ðshall€be€liable€in€treble€the€amount€of€damages€resulting€from€orÐ  !p! Ðincident€to€the€breach€of€the€contract.€€The€party€injured€by€suchÐ 8"ˆ" Ðbreach€may€bring€suit€for€the€breach€and€for€such€damages.ÐP# #` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„50„109€(1995).€€Much€discussion€took€place€at€trial€and€onÐ €%Ð % Ðappeal€regarding€a€plaintiffððs€burden€of€proof€according€to€the€statute.€€In€view€ofÐ $'t"' Ðthe€fact€that€the€statute€itself€does€not€set€forth€a€standard€of€proof€for€treblingÐ È($) Ðdamages,€we€look€to€case€law.Ð l*¼%+ ÐÌà ` àWith€regard€to€procurement€of€breach€in€general,€our€supreme€court€hasÐ ´-)/ Ðmost€recently€held:Ð X/¨*1 ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àTennessee€law€recognizes€both€a€common€law€action€and€a€statutoryÐ ü0L,3 Ðaction€for€unlawful€inducement€of€a€breach€of€contract.€€T.C.A.€Sec.Ð 2d-4 Ð47-50-109,€òòEdwards€v.€Travelers€Insurance€of€Hartford,Ð ° ÐConnecticut,óó€563€F.2d€105,€119€(6th€Cir.1977),€citing€numerousÐ È Ðcases€from€this€Court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€T.C.A.€Sec.Ð à0 Ð47-50-109€is€but€a€statutory€declaration€of€the€common€law€tortÐ øH Ðaction,€expressly€substituting€treble€damages€for€punitive€damages.€Ð  ` ÐòòEmmco€Insurance€Company€v.€Beacon€Mutual€Indemnity€Company,óóÐ ( x Ð204€Tenn.€540,€322€S.W.2d€226,€231€(1959).€€The€statute€providesÐ @  Ðfor€mandatory€treble€damages€in€the€event€there€is€a€"clear€showing"Ð X ¨ Ðthat€the€defendant€induced€the€breach.€€òòContinental€Motel€Brokers,Ð p À ÐInc.€v.€Blankenship,óó€39€F.2d€226,€229€(6th€Cir.1984).€€ÐˆØ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓÌà ` àPolk€&€Sullivan€v.€United€Cities€Gas,€óó783€S.W.2d€538,€542€(Tenn.€1989).Ð \¬  ÐThe€court€in€òòPolk€&€Sullivanóó€followed€a€well„worn€path€by€using€a€statementÐ P Ðwhich€dates€back€to€the€first€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€case€concerning€the€effectÐ ¤ô Ðof€the€treble€damages€statute.€€òòÐ H˜ ÐÓ€Óóóà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àThe€Code€Section€relied€on€(47-1706,€T.C.A.)€and€madeÐ ì< Ðthe€basis€of€this€action€under€the€Second€Count€of€theÐ T Ðdeclaration€contemplates€the€improper€inducement,€andÐ l Ðwe€might€add€the€unlawful€conduct,€of€the€allegedÐ 4„ Ðwrongdoer€whereby€a€contract€is€broken.€€The€statuteÐ Lœ Ðcontemplates€the€imposition€of€a€severe€penalty,€ð ðandÐ d´ Ðshould€not€be€enforced€except€upon€a€clear€showing.ðð€Ð |Ì ÐòòLichter€v.€Fulcher,€óó22€Tenn.App.€670,€125€S.W.2d€501,Ð ” ä Ð508.Ь!ü¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÓ  Ó*€*€*Ð Ä" ÐÓÆÓà8 ` àConsidering€the€intention€of€the€Legislature€in€passing€the€statuteÐ Ü#, Ðrelied€on€(T.C.A.€Sec.€47-1706),€we€think€it€was€designed€as€aÐ ô$D  Ðprotection€against€wilful€wrongs,€such€as€inducing€employees€toÐ  &\!! Ðbreak€their€contract€with€their€employer€which€would€result€in€injuryÐ $'t"" Ðand€damage€to€the€latter's€business€interest.€€The€statute€is€declaratoryÐ <(Œ## Ðof€the€common€law€except€as€to€the€òòamountóó€of€damages€that€may€beÐ T)¤$$ Ðrecovered€against€a€wrongdoer.€€€òò€Ðl*¼%%` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓEmmco€Ins.€Co.€v.€Beacon€Mut.€Indem.€Co.,óó€204€Tenn.€540,€550„51,€322€S.W.2dÐ œ,ì'' Ð226,€231€(1959)€(emphasis€added).€€òòSee€also€Dynamic€Motel€Mgmt.,€Inc.,€v.€ErwinóóÐ @.)) Ð528€S.W.2d€819€at€822€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1975);€€òòEdwards€v.€Travelers€Ins.€ofÐ ä/4++ ÐHartford,€Conn.,€óó563€F.2d€105,€€119„20€(6th€Cir.€1977);€òòContinental€MotelÐ ˆ1Ø,- ÐBrokers,€Inc.€v.€Blankenship,€óó739€F.2d€226,€229„30€(6th€Cir.€1984).Ð ,3|./ ÐÌà ` àWhile€this€treble€damage€statute€has€been€in€effect€since€1907,€no€caseÐ t6Ä13 Ðseems€to€have€directly€addressed€the€charge€to€the€jury€as€to€the€burden€of€proof.€Ð 8h35 ÐIn€òòMyers€v.€Pickering€Firm,€Inc.óó,€959€S.W.2d€152€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997),€the€thirdÐ ° Ðissue€raised€on€appeal€by€the€defendant€cast€in€treble€damages€under€the€statuteÐ T¤ Ðwas:€€"3.€€Whether€the€court€erred€in€not€defining€the€correct€burden€of€proof€toÐ øH Ðthe€jury€in€regard€to€the€statutory€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€claim€of€MK"€Ð œ ì Ð959€S.W.2d€at€155.Ð @  ÐÌà ` àSince€the€court€of€appeals€then€affirmed€the€action€of€the€trial€judge€inÐ ˆØ  Ðgranting€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€on€the€action€based€upon€theÐ ,|  Ðprocurement€of€the€breach€of€contract,€this€third€issue€was€not€addressed.€€"In€viewÐ Ð  Ðof€our€ruling€on€MK's€first€two€issues,€we€pretremit€MK's€third€issue."€€959Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€at€162.Ð h ÐÌà ` àAppellee€argues€against€interpreting€the€language€of€òòEmmco€óóand€its€progenyÐ `° Ðas€requiring€a€heightened€burden€of€proof.€€However,€in€the€absence€of€any€plainÐ T Ðlanguage€from€the€statute€on€the€subject,€the€"clear€showing"€standard€of€òòEmmcoóóÐ ¨ø Ðmust€prevail.Ð Lœ ÐÌà ` àThe€elements€of€the€cause€under€the€statute€are€the€same€as€under€theÐ ” ä" Ðcommon€law€action.€€As€this€court€has€stated€previously:Ð 8"ˆ$ ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àà ¸ àWe€think€the€greater€weight€of€authority€supports€theÐ Ü#,& Ðproposition€of€law€that€before€there€can€be€a€recovery€for€interferenceÐ ô$D ' Ðin€the€performance€or€the€procurement€of€the€breach€of€a€contract,€asÐ  &\!( Ðcontemplated€by€T.C.A.€ðð€47-15-113,€the€following€criteria€must€beÐ $'t") Ðmet:Ð<(Œ#*` ü!` ü! ÐÓ6X„Xz <À•X„°ƒXÀ ‘X6Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àà z à1.à < àThere€must€be€a€legal€contract.€€ÐT)¤$+¸ ¤¸ ¤ Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àà z à2.à < àThe€wrongdoer€must€have€knowledge€of€theÐ l*¼%, Ðexistence€of€the€contract.€€Ð„+Ô&-¸ ¤¸ ¤ Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àà z à3.à < àThere€must€be€an€intention€to€induce€itsÐ œ,ì'. Ðbreach.€€Ð´-)/¸ ¤¸ ¤ Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àà z à4.à < àThe€wrongdoer€must€have€acted€maliciously.€Ð Ì.*0 Ðà8z ¸ ¤¸ ¤à5.à < àThere€must€be€a€breach€of€the€contract.€€Ðä/4+1z âz â Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àà z à6.à < àThe€act€complained€of€must€be€the€proximateÐ ü0L,2 Ðcause€€of€the€breach€of€the€contract.€Ð2d-3¸ ¤¸ ¤ Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àà z à7.à < àThere€must€have€been€damages€resulting€Ð ,3|.4 Ðfrom€the€€breach€of€the€contract.ÐD4”/5¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌà ` à45€Am.Jur.2d,€Interference€ðððð€3,€4,€5,€6,€7€and€11.Ð t6Ä17 Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÓ€ÓòòDynamic€Motel€Mgmt.,€Inc.€v.€Erwin,óó€528€S.W.2d€819€at€822€(Tenn.€Ct.€Ô_ÔApp.Ð ¤8ô39 Ð1975).€Ð ° ÐÌà ` àIt€is€true€that€the€statute€is€a€codification€of€the€common€law€rule€in€allÐ øH Ðrespects€except€as€to€damages.€òòSee€Ô_ÔEmmcoÔ_Ô€Ins.€Co.€v.€Beacon€Mut.€Ô_ÔIndemÔ_Ô.€Co.,Ð œ ì Ðóó204€Tenn.€540,€551,€322€S.W.2d€226,€231(1959).€€In€the€trial€court,€appelleeÐ @  Ðsuccessfully€argued€for€a€"preponderance€of€the€evidence"€burden€of€proof.׃U×Ý ƒ(#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ThisÐ ä 4  Ðargument€ignores€the€penal€nature€of€the€statute.€Where€the€statute€itself€is€silentÐ ˆØ  Ðas€to€burden€of€proof,€our€courts€have€supplied€the€burden.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔEmmcoÔ_Ô€Ins.€Co.óó,Ð ,|  Ðòòsupraóó€at€551,€231.€€òòSee€also€Ô_ÔLichterÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔFulcherÔ_Ôóó,€22€Tenn.€App.€670,€681,€125Ð Ð  ÐS.W.2d€501,€508€(1938).Ð tÄ ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ A(eh88=ÓV.€€€€€€€ELECTIONÐ ¼  Ðà ` àAppellees'€complaint€alleges€both€common€law€and€statutory€inducementÐ `° Ðto€breach.€€Upon€remand€the€jury€should€be€instructed€regarding€the€requiredÐ T ÐòòÔ_ÔEmmcoÔ_Ôóó€clear€and€convincing€showing€of€intentional€inducement€to€breach€underÐ ¨ø Ð47„50„109€as€well€as€the€clear€and€convincing€showing€of€reckless,€intentional,Ð Lœ Ðfraudulent€or€malicious€behavior€under€òòHodges€v.€Ô_ÔToofÔ_Ôóó,€in€accordance€with€theÐ ð@  Ðcoexistence€of€a€common€law€tort€and€statutory€action€for€procurement€of€breachÐ ” ä" Ðof€contract.€€òòSee€Polk€&€Sullivan,€Inc.€v.€United€Cities€Gas€Co.,óó€783€S.W.2d€538Ð 8"ˆ$ Ð(Tenn.€1989);€òòsee€also€Edwards€v.€Travelers€Ins.€of€Hartford,€Conn.óó,€563€F.2d€105Ð Ü#,& Ð(6òòthóó€Cir.€1977).€€In€the€event€that€a€plaintiff€successfully€asserts€a€cause€of€actionÐ €%Ð ( Ðunder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„50„109€as€well€as€a€punitive€Ð $'t"* Ðdamages€claim€in€the€common€law€action€for€Ô_ÔtortiousÔ_Ô€interference€with€contract,Ð È($, Ðplaintiff€is€required€to€elect€between€remedies.€€Plaintiff€cannot€have€€ð ðððdoubleÐ l*¼%. ÐÔ_Ôredressðð€for€a€single€wrongðð.€€òòPurcell€Enterprises,€Inc.€v.€State,óó€631€S.W.2d€401,Ð ° Ð409€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).€òòSee€generally€Barger€v.€Webb,óó€216€Tenn.€275,€391Ð T¤ ÐS.W.2d€664,€666-667€(1965).Ð øH ÐÌà ` àOn€August€30,€1999,€the€supreme€court€released€its€opinion€in€òòConcreteÐ @  ÐSpaces,€Inc.,€et€al€v.€Henry€Sender,€et€alóó,€No.€01S01„9812„CH„00224€(Tenn.€Aug.Ð ä 4  Ð30,€1999).€€In€this€opinion€the€supreme€court€carefully€considered€the€coexistenceÐ ˆØ  Ðof€a€common€law€action€for€breach€of€contract,€punitive€damages€under€òòHodgesÐ ,|  Ðv.€Toof€óóand€the€statutory€remedy€provided€by€the€Tennessee€Consumer€ProtectionÐ Ð  ÐAct€(T.C.A.€47„18„109(a)(3)(1995)).€€The€opinion€is€analogous€to€and€consistentÐ tÄ Ðwith€the€continued€coexistence€of€both€the€common€law€remedy€and€the€statutoryÐ h Ðremedy€for€inducing€breach€of€contract€as€such€coexistence€is€mandated€by€òòPolkÐ ¼  Ð&€Sullivan,€Inc.€v.€United€Cities€Gas€Co.óó,€783€S.W.2d€538€(Tenn.€1989).€€TheÐ `° Ðcourt€in€òòConcrete€Spacesóó€delineates€the€distinction€between€punitive€damages€asÐ T Ðrequired€by€òòHodges€v.€S.€C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896€(Tenn.€1992)€and€trebleÐ ¨ø Ðdamages€as€may€be€assessed€by€mandate€of€statute€same€being€termed€ð ðmultipleððÐ Lœ Ðdamages.òò€óóÐ ð@  ÐÌà ` àSince€under€these€holdings€a€plaintiff€simultaneouslyÔ#†¼>r»»&¼…Ôz©#ÔÔ‡&¼…Ô»»¼>rÔ€may€pursue€a€simpleÐ 8"ˆ$ Ðcommon€law€remedy,€a€statutory€remedy€seeking€ð ðmultipleðð€damages€and,€as€anÐ Ü#,& Ðenhancement€in€his€common€law€action,€ð ðpunitiveðð€damages€under€òòHodgesóó,€anÐ €%Ð ( Ðelection€of€remedies€is€required,€at€least€as€it€relates€to€statutory€ð ðmultipleððÐ $'t"* Ðdamages€and€ð ðpunitiveðð€damages€under€òòHodgesóó.Ð È($, ÐÓ€Óà ` àSays€the€court:€€Ð l*¼%. Ðà8 ` àThe€doctrine€of€election€of€remedies€is€implicated€when€twoÐ „+Ô&/ Ðinconsistent€and€irreconcilable€remedies€are€available€to€the€plaintiffÐ œ,ì'0 Ðto€redress€a€single€wrongful€act.€€òòSee€Barger€v.€Webb,€óó391€S.W.2dÐ ´-)1 Ð664,€667€(Tenn.€1965);€òòAllied€Sound,€Inc.€v.€Neelyóó,€909€S.W.2d€815,Ð Ì.*2 Ð822€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€The€purpose€of€the€doctrine€is€to€preventÐ ä/4+3 Ðdouble€redress€for€a€single€wrong,€òòsee€Bargeróó,€391€S.W.2d€at€667;Ð ü0L,4 ÐòòBarnes€v.€Walkeróó,€199€Tenn.€364,€368,€234€S.W.2d€648,€650€(Tenn.Ð 2d-5 Ð1950),€and€it€requires€the€plaintiff€in€such€a€scenario€to€choose€oneÐ ,3|.6 Ðtheory€of€recovery€under€which€to€proceed.€€òòSee€Forbes€v.€WilsonÐ D4”/7 ÐCounty€Emergency€Dist.€911€Bd.óó,€966€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.€1998).Ð\5¬08` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àAt€first€glance€there€appears€to€be€some€discord€between€theÐ t6Ä19 Ðdoctrine€of€election€of€remedies€and€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.01,€whichÐ Œ7Ü2: Ðgrants€a€plaintiff€wide€latitude€in€pleading€alternative€claims€forÐ ¤8ô3; Ðrelief€and€pursuing€an€array€of€theories€of€recovery€in€a€single€action.€Ð ° ÐA€common€example€of€this€friction€occurs€when€a€plaintiff€seeksÐ È Ðmultiple€damages€under€an€available€statutory€remedy€as€well€asÐ à0 Ðpunitive€damages€pursuant€to€a€common€law€claim.€€While€this€typeÐ øH Ðof€alternative€pleading€is€available€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.01,Ð  ` Ðdouble€recovery€may€occur€if€the€jury€decides€that€the€plaintiff€isÐ ( x Ðentitled€to€both€punitive€damages€and€multiple€damages.€Ð@ ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àAlmost€every€jurisdiction€addressing€this€question€hasÐ X ¨ Ðconcluded€that€recovery€of€both€multiple€statutory€damages€andÐ p À Ðpunitive€damages€constitutes€an€impermissible€double€recoveryÐ ˆØ  Ðbecause€the€two€forms€of€enhanced€damages€serve€the€sameÐ  ð  Ðfunctions.€€The€purpose€of€punitive€damages€is€not€to€compensate€theÐ ¸  Ðplaintiff€but€to€punish€the€wrongdoer€and€to€deter€others€fromÐ Ð  Ðcommitting€similar€wrongs€in€the€future.€€òòSee€Coffey€v.€FayetteÐ è8  ÐTubular€Prodóó.,€929€S.W.2d€326,€328€(Tenn.€1996);€òòHodgesóó,€833Ð P ÐS.W.2d€at€900.€€Several€Tennessee€statutory€schemes€achieve€theÐ h Ðsame€objective€of€punishment€and€deterrence€through€multipleÐ 0€ Ðdamage€provisions,€which€allow€for€compensatory€damages€to€beÐ H˜ Ðtrebled€if€the€defendantððs€conduct€rises€to€a€specified€level€ofÐ `° Ðculpability.€€Because€multiple€damages€are€punitive€in€nature€and€notÐ xÈ Ðintended€to€compensate€for€the€plaintiffððs€injury,€òòsee€Smith€CoronaÐ à ÐCorp.€v.€Pelikan,€Inc.óó,€784€F.€Supp.€452,€483€(M.D.€Tenn.€1992);Ð ¨ø ÐòòLien€v.€Couchóó,€993€S.W.2d€53,€58€(Tenn.€App.€1998),€a€plaintiffÐ À Ðcannot€recover€both€punitive€damages€and€multiple€damages€in€theÐ Ø( Ðsame€cause€of€action,€even€if€they€are€each€available,€because€receiptÐ ð@ Ðof€both€forms€of€enhanced€damages€violates€the€principle€againstÐ  X Ðdouble€recovery.€€òòSee€Edwards€v.€Travelers€Ins.€of€Hartford,€Conn.óó,Ð  !p Ð563€F.2d€105,€119„120€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1977);€òòLorentzóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€320Ð 8"ˆ Ð(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÐP# ` ü!` ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓConcrete€Spaces,€Inc.,€et€al€v.€Henry€Sender,€et€alóó,€No.€01A01„9812„CH„00224,Ð €%Ð  Ð1999€WL€668744,€Ô#†¼>r»»&¼…Ô”è#ÔÔ‡&¼…Ô»»¼>rÔ**€4„5€(Tenn.€Aug.€30,€1999)€òòfootnotes€omittedóó.Ð $'t"  ÐÌà ` àHaving€thus€analyzed€the€problems€involved€in€the€necessary€election€ofÐ l*¼%$ Ðremedies€which€prevents€double€recovery,€the€court€then€proceeds€to€alignÐ ,`'& ÐTennessee€with€what€is€referred€to€as€the€majority€rule.Ð ´-)( ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àà ¸ àWhen€a€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€both€punitive€damages€inÐ X/¨** Ðconjunction€with€a€common€law€claim€for€relief€and€to€trebleÐ p0À++ Ðdamages€under€a€statutory€scheme,€the€majority€of€jurisdictionsÐ ˆ1Ø,, Ðemploy€a€version€of€the€election€of€remedies€doctrine€to€preventÐ  2ð-- Ðdouble€recovery€of€enhanced€damages.€€Commentators€suggest€thatÐ ¸3/. Ðtwo€general€trends€have€developed€with€respect€to€how€and€when€theÐ Ð4 0/ Ðplaintiffððs€election€is€to€be€implemented.€€The€most€prevalentÐ è5810 Ðapproach€allows€the€plaintiff€to€submit€to€the€fact€finder€all€theoriesÐ 7P21 Ðof€recovery,€including€the€standards€for€both€punitive€damages€andÐ 8h32 Ðmultiple€damages.€€If€the€jury€(and€judge,€in€some€instances)Ð ° Ðdetermines€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€both€forms€of€enhancedÐ È Ðdamages,€the€plaintiff€may€request€that€the€amount€of€damages€underÐ à0 Ðeach€remedy€be€determined€before€making€an€election€of€whichÐ øH Ðremedy€he€or€she€would€like€the€judgment€to€reflect.Ð `` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àTwo€objectives€are€achieved€by€allowing€the€plaintiff€to€selectÐ ( x Ðan€award€of€damages€after€the€judge€and€jury€have€decided€all€theÐ @  Ðissues€surrounding€liability€and€the€entitlement€and€amount€ofÐ X ¨ Ðenhanced€damages:€one,€improper€double€recovery€is€prevented,€andÐ p À Ðtwo,€the€goal€of€deterrence€is€realized.€€òòSee€Eastern€Star,€Inc.€v.Ð ˆØ  ÐUnion€Bldg.€Materials€Corp.óó,€712€P.2d€1148,€1159€(Haw.€1985).€Ð  ð  ÐMost€courts€that€have€adopted€this€approach€agree€with€the€rationaleÐ ¸  Ðof€the€court€in€òòMapp€v.€Toyota€World,€Inc.óó,€344€S.E.2d€297,€301Ð Ð  Ð(N.C.€1986),€which€observed€that€ð ðit€would€be€manifestly€unfair€toÐ è8  Ðrequire€plaintiffs€in€such€cases€to€elect€before€the€jury€has€answeredÐ P Ðthe€issues€and€the€trial€court€has€determined€whether€to€treble€theÐ h Ðcompensatory€damages€found€by€the€jury€.€.€.€.ðð€€Moreover,Ð 0€ Ðsubmitting€incompatible€and€alternative€theories€of€recovery€to€a€juryÐ H˜ Ðcreates€no€conflict€or€duplicative€award€because€until€the€jury€makesÐ `° Ðits€findings€of€liability,€no€double€recovery€can€exist.€€AnyÐ xÈ Ðduplicative€aspect€of€the€juryððs€findings€is€eliminated€when€theÐ à Ðplaintiff€makes€an€election.€€òòSee€Butler€v.€Josephððs€Wine€Shop,€Inc.óó,Ð ¨ø Ð633€S.W.2d€926,€933€(Tex.€App.€1982).€€Another€advantage€to€lettingÐ À Ðthe€fact€finder€decide€each€theory€of€recovery€is€that€all€the€findingsÐ Ø( Ðon€liability€and€damages€are€preserved€for€review.€€òòSee€SuperTurfóó,Ð ð@ Ð660€F.2d€1275,€1279€(8òòthóó€Cir.€1981).Ð X` ü!` ü! Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*€*€*Ð  !p Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àWe€agree€with€the€reasoning€of€the€majority€of€jurisdictionsÐ 8"ˆ Ðconfronted€with€this€issue€that€it€would€be€unfair€to€require€electionÐ P#  Ðbefore€a€determination€of€liability€and€entitlement€to€punitiveÐ h$¸ Ðdamages€and€multiple€damages€has€been€made.€€In€so€concluding,€weÐ €%Ð  Ðagree€with€the€plaintiffs€that€this€approach€does€not€unduly€burdenÐ ˜&è! Ða€defendant€who€has€been€found€liable€under€more€than€one€theoryÐ °'#  Ðof€recovery.€€The€majority€rule€simply€allows€a€plaintiff€to€realize€theÐ È($! Ðmaximum€recovery€available€under€the€fact€findersðð€findings.€€GivenÐ à)0%" Ðthe€punitive€and€deterrent€purposes€of€punitive€and€multipleÐ ø*H&# Ðdamages,€such€a€result€is€entirely€proper.Ð,`'$` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€majority€approach€is€also€consistent€with€our€Rules€ofÐ (-x(% ÐCivil€Procedure,€which€reflect€the€notion€that€plaintiffs€are€free€toÐ @.)& Ðpursue€several€alternative€theories€of€recovery€and€to€structure€theirÐ X/¨*' Ðclaims€in€the€manner€that€is€most€beneficial€to€them.€€Again,€theÐ p0À+( Ðelection€of€remedies€doctrine€serves€only€to€prevent€double€redressÐ ˆ1Ø,) Ðfor€a€single€wrong.€€òòSee€Wimley€v.€Rudolphóó,€931€S.W.2d€513,€515Ð  2ð-* Ð(Tenn.€1996);€òòAllied€Sound,€Inc.óó,€909€S.W.2d€at€822.€€If€a€defendantÐ ¸3/+ Ðhas€been€found€liable€under€more€than€one€theory€of€recovery,€noÐ Ð4 0, Ðinequity€results€from€allowing€the€plaintiff€to€choose€one€of€theÐ è581- Ðclaims€upon€which€to€realize€its€maximum€recovery€of€enhancedÐ 7P2. Ðdamages.€€In€other€words,€no€danger€of€double€recovery€exists€unlessÐ 8h3/ Ðthe€plaintiff€actually€realizes€satisfaction€of€both€forms€of€enhancedÐ ° Ðdamages.€€òòSee€Freeman€v.€Myersóó,€774€S.W.2d€892,€895€(Mo.€App.Ð È Ð1989).Ðà0` ü!` ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓConcrete€Spaces,€Inc.,€et€al€v.€Henry€Sender,€et€alóó,€òòóóNo.€01A01„9812„CH„00224,Ð  ` Ð1999€WL€668744,€**€5„6€(Tenn.€Aug.€30,€1999).Ð ´  ÐÌà ` àHaving€now€settled€the€law€as€to€the€continued€coexistence€of€common€lawÐ ü L  Ðremedy,€statutory€remedy€seeking€ð ðmultiple€damages,ðð€and€common€law€remedyÐ  ð  Ðenhanced€by€ð ðpunitive€damagesðð€under€òòHodgesóó,€and€the€question€of€election€ofÐ D”  Ðremedies€where€ð ðmultiple€damagesðð€and€ð ðpunitive€damagesðð€are€both€involved,Ð è8 Ðthe€court€moves€on€to€the€problem€who€makes€culpability€determinations.Ð ŒÜ ÐÌVI.€€€€€WHO€DECIDES€CULPABILITY?Ð Ô$ Ðà ` àWe€must€first€note€the€distinction€between€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ xÈ Ðsection€47„18„109(a)(3),€the€statute€providing€for€treble€damages€under€theÐ l ÐConsumer€Protection€Act€as€was€involved€in€òòConcrete€Spaces,óó€and€TennesseeÐ À ÐCode€Annotated€section€47„50„109,€which€is€the€general€treble€damage€statute€forÐ d´ Ðinducing€breach€of€contract€involved€in€the€case€at€bar.Ô#†¼>r»»&¼…ÔÃù#ÔÔ‡&¼…Ô»»¼>rÔ€€Tennessee€CodeÐ  X  ÐAnnotated€section€47„18„109(a)(3)€and€(4),€provide:Ð ¬!ü" ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àà ¸ àIf€the€court€finds€that€the€use€or€employment€of€the€unfair€orÐ P# $ Ðdeceptive€act€or€practice€was€a€willful€or€knowing€violation€of€thisÐ h$¸% Ðpart,€the€court€may€award€three€(3)€times€the€actual€damage€sustainedÐ €%Ð & Ðand€may€provide€such€other€relief€as€it€considers€necessary€andÐ ˜&è!' Ðproper.а'#(` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àIn€determining€whether€treble€damages€should€be€awarded,€theÐ È($) Ðtrial€court€may€consider,€among€other€things:Ðà)0%*` ü!` ü! ÐÓ€ )(¶é88AÓÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àÝ‚73£ÝÔ2¶éÔ(Ú  ÚAÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0z ¸ ¤¸ ¤àÝ  ÝThe€competence€of€the€consumer€or€other€person;݃73£kÝŒÐø*H&+z ¤z ¤ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àÝ‚73£?ÝÔ2¶éÔ(Ú  ÚBÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0z ¸ ¤¸ ¤àÝ  ÝThe€nature€of€the€deception€or€coercion€practicedÐ ,`', Ðupon€the€consumer€or€other€person;݃73£?ŒÝŒÐ(-x(-z ¤z ¤ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àÝ‚73£™ÝÔ2¶éÔ(Ú  ÚCÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0z ¸ ¤¸ ¤àÝ  ÝThe€damage€to€the€consumer€or€other€person;€and݃73£™æÝŒÐ@.).z ¤z ¤ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àÝ‚73£ºÝÔ2¶éÔ(Ú  ÚDÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0z ¸ ¤¸ ¤àÝ  ÝThe€good€faith€of€the€person€found€to€haveÐ X/¨*/ Ðviolated€the€provisions€of€this€part.݃73£ºÝŒÐp0À+0z ¤z ¤ ÐŒÝ  ÝÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3)(4)(1995).Ð  2ð-2 ÐÓ€ÓÌà ` àThe€supreme€court€in€òòConcrete€Spacesóó€makes€it€clear€that€under€this€statuteÐ \5¬05 Ðit€is€the€trial€judge€and€not€the€jury€that€decides€whether€the€defendantððs€violationÐ 7P27 Ðwas€knowing€and€willful€and€further,€the€trial€judge€and€not€the€jury€whoÐ ¤8ô39 Ðconsiders€the€four€elements€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„18„Ð ° Ð109(a)(4),€in€determining€whether€or€not€to€grant€treble€(multiple)€damages.€Ð T¤ ÐòòConcrete€Spacesóó€at€*€9,€fn.€13.Ð øH ÐÌà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„50„109,€which€is€the€treble€damageÐ @  Ðstatute€in€issue€in€this€case,€provides:Ð ä 4  ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àà ¸ àIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person,€by€inducement,€persuasion,Ð ˆØ  Ðmisrepresentation,€or€other€mens,€to€induce€or€procure€the€reach€orÐ  ð  Ðviolation,€refusal€or€failure€to€perform€any€lawful€contract€by€anyÐ ¸  Ðparty€thereto;€and,€in€every€case€where€a€breach€or€violation€of€suchÐ Ð  Ðcontract€is€so€procured,€the€person€so€procuring€or€inducing€the€sameÐ è8 Ðshall€be€liable€in€treble€the€amount€of€damages€resulting€from€orÐ P Ðincident€to€the€breach€of€the€contract.€€The€party€injured€by€suchÐ h Ðbreach€may€bring€suit€for€the€breach€and€for€such€damages.Ð0€` ü!` ü! ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„50„109€(1995).Ð `° ÐÓ€ÓÌà ` àIt€is€readily€seen€that€this€statute€does€not€specifically€provide€whether€theÐ l Ðjury€or€the€trial€judge€is€to€make€the€requisite€culpability€findings€for€theÐ À Ðimposition€of€treble€(multiple)€damages.€€Neither€does€the€statute€specificallyÐ d´ Ðaddress€the€question€of€whether€the€burden€of€proof€necessary€to€establish€theÐ  X Ðright€to€treble€(multiple)€damages€is€by€a€mere€preponderance€of€the€evidence€orÐ ¬!ü  Ðby€a€clear€and€convincing€evidence€standard.€€As€notedòò,óó€òòsupraóó,€the€burden€of€proof€Ð P# " Ðnot€specifically€addressed€in€the€statute€has€long€been€settled€as€being€a€ð ðclear€andÐ ô$D $ Ðconvincing€evidenceðð€burden.€€òòSee€Emmco€Ins.€Co.€óóand€òòLichter,€supra.óóÐ ˜&è!& ÐÌà ` àòòConcrete€Spacesóó€gives€some€guidance€for€applying€Tennessee€CodeÐ à)0%* ÐAnnotated€section€47„50„109€but€does€not€address€the€issue€of€who€makes€theÐ „+Ô&, Ðdetermination€of€culpability€where€the€trebling€statute€is€silent€on€this€point.€€TheÐ (-x(. ÐòòConcrete€Spacesóó€court€says:Ð Ì.*0 ÐÓ€Óà8 ` àà ¸ àIf€a€statutory€remedy€requires€the€jury€to€make€a€determinationÐ p0À+2 Ðof€the€requisite€culpability€for€multiple€damages,€the€jury€should€beÐ ˆ1Ø,3 Ðrequired€to€make€that€determination€on€its€special€verdict€form.€Ð  2ð-4 ÐAlternatively,€if€the€statute€requires€the€trial€court€to€assess€whetherÐ ¸3/5 Ðmultiple€damages€are€warranted,€as€does€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÐ Ð4 06 ÐProtection€Act,€then€the€issue€of€multiple€damages€should€be€decidedÐ è5817 Ðby€the€trial€court,€after€the€jury€renders€an€initial€determination€ofÐ 7P28 Ðliability,€regardless€of€whether€the€jury€has€also€awarded€punitiveÐ 8h39 Ðdamages€pursuant€to€a€common€law€claim.€€In€the€same€manner,€ifÐ ° Ðpunitive€damages€are€sought,€and€the€jury€finds€that€the€defendantÐ È Ðacted€intentionally,€fraudulently,€maliciously€or€recklessly€inÐ à0 Ðaccordance€with€òòHodgesóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€901,€the€plaintiff€may€thenÐ øH Ðrequest€a€hearing€to€calculate€the€amount€of€the€award.€€Only€afterÐ  ` Ðthe€amount€of€punitive€damages€and€multiple€damages€have€beenÐ ( x Ðassessed€is€the€plaintiff€required€to€make€an€election€between€the€twoÐ @  Ðtypes€of€remedies.ÐX ¨` ü!` ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓConcrete€Spaces,€Inc.,€et€al€v.€Henry€Sender,€et€alóó,€òòóóNo.€01A01„9812„CH„00224,Ð ˆØ  Ð1999€WL€668744,Ô#†¼>r»»&¼…Ô²#ÔÔ‡&¼…Ô»»¼>rÔ€*€8€(Tenn.€Aug.€30,€1999).Ô#†¼>r»»&¼…ÔL.#ÔÔ‡&¼…Ô»»¼>rÔÐ ,|  ÐÌà ` àWe€find€that€the€requisite€culpability€determination€under€Tennessee€CodeÐ tÄ ÐAnnotated€section€47„50„109€must€be€made€by€the€jury€under€proper€instructionsÐ h Ðfrom€the€trial€court.Ð ¼  ÐÌVII.€€€€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSÐ T Ðà ` àFirst€of€all,€since€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„50„109€is€simplyÐ ¨ø Ðdeclaratory€of€the€common€law€except€as€to€damages,€òòEmmco€Ins.€Co.€v.€BeaconÐ Lœ ÐMut.€Indem.€Co.óó,€322€S.W.2d€226,€231€(Tenn.€1959),€and€since€the€common€lawÐ ð@ Ðremedy€continues€to€be€viable,€coexistive€with€this€statutory€treble€(multiple)Ð ” ä Ðdamage€statute,€òòsee€Polk€&€Sullivan€v.€United€Cities€Gas€Co.óó,€783€S.W.2d€538,Ð 8"ˆ! Ð542€(Tenn.€1989),€it€is€evident€that€the€jury€should€first€be€instructed€as€to€theÐ Ü#,# Ðelements€of€the€common€law€remedy€and€the€burden€of€proof€necessary€toÐ €%Ð % Ðestablish€the€common€law€remedy€for€compensatory€damages,€without€regard€toÐ $'t"' Ðsuch€burden€of€proof€as€is€necessary€to€establish€liability€for€statutory€trebleÐ È($) Ð(multiple)€damages€or€necessary€to€establish€liability€for€ð ðpunitiveðð€damagesÐ l*¼%+ Ðunder€òòHodgesóó.Ð ,`'- ÐÌà ` àThe€seven€elements€necessary€to€establish€liability€under€the€common€lawÐ X/¨*1 Ðfor€interference€in€the€performance€or€procurement€of€the€breach€of€a€contract€areÐ ü0L,3 Ðthe€same€seven€elements€set€forth€in€òòDynamic€Motel€Management,€Inc.€v.€Erwinóó,Ð  2ð-5 Ð528€S.W.2d€819,€822.€€These€elements€are:Ð D4”/7 ÐØ! !ØÓ€ 9(Eh88)ÓÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  ÝÓ€Óà8 ` àà ¸ àÝ‚73£16ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0z ` ü!` ü!àÝ  ÝThere€must€be€a€legal€contract.݃73£16ˆ6ÝŒÐè5819z ü!z ü! ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà ¸ àÝ‚73£K7ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0z ` ü!` ü!àÝ  ÝThe€wrongdoer€must€have€knowledge€of€the€existence€ofÐ 7P2: Ðthe€contract.݃73£K77ÝŒÐ8h3;z ü!z ü! ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà ¸ àÝ‚73£‹8ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0z ` ü!` ü!àÝ  ÝThere€must€be€an€intention€to€induce€its€breach.݃73£‹8Ð8݌аz ü!z ü! ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà ¸ àÝ‚73£¤9ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0z ` ü!` ü!àÝ  ÝThe€wrongdoer€must€have€acted€maliciously.݃73£¤9é9ÝŒÐÈz ü!z ü! ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà ¸ àÝ‚73£·:ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0z ` ü!` ü!àÝ  ÝThere€must€be€a€breach€of€the€contract.݃73£·:ü:ÝŒÐà0z ü!z ü! ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà ¸ àÝ‚73£Ç;ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú6Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0z ` ü!` ü!àÝ  ÝThe€act€complained€of€must€be€the€proximate€cause€of€theÐ øH Ðbreach€of€the€contract.݃73£Ç; <݌Р`z ü!z ü! ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚73£"ÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àà ¸ àÝ‚73£=ÝÔ2EhÔÚ  Ú7Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0z ` ü!` ü!àÝ  ÝThere€must€have€ben€damages€resulting€from€the€breachÐ ( x Ðof€the€contract.݃73£=Y=ÝŒÐ@ z ü!z ü! ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓ€Ó528€S.W.2d€819,€822.Ð p À ÐÌà ` àThese€seven€elements€in€òòDynamic€Motelóó€were€copied€from€the€common€lawÐ ¸  Ðelements€asserted€in€45€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòInterferenceóó€ðððð€3„7,€11€(1999).€€The€burdenÐ \¬  Ðof€proof€necessary€to€establish€the€common€law€action€for€compensatory€damagesÐ P Ðis€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€standard€as€to€these€seven€elements€and€theÐ ¤ô Ðjury€should€be€so€charged.Ð H˜ ÐÌà ` àSecondly,€the€jury€should€be€charged€under€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ à Ðsection€47„50„109€as€to€these€same€seven€elements€but€the€burden€of€proofÐ 4„ Ðnecessary€to€establish€these€elements€under€the€trebling€statute€should€be€ð ðclearÐ Ø( Ðand€convincing€evidence.ðð€€òòEmmco€Ins.€Co.€v.€Beacon€Mut.€Indem.€Co.óó,€322Ð |Ì ÐS.W.2d€226;€òòLichter€v.€Fulcheróó,€125€S.W.2d€501,€508.€€Upon€a€finding€by€the€juryÐ  !p  Ðof€all€seven€of€the€òòDynamic€Motelóó€factors€by€a€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÐ Ä"" Ðstandard,€treble€(multiple)€damages€are€automatic.Ð h$¸$ ÐÌà ` àThe€jury€should€also€be€charged€under€òòHodges€v.€Toofóó€as€to€whether€or€notÐ °'#( Ðplaintiff€is€entitled€to€punitive€damages.€€If€the€jury€responds€in€the€affirmative,Ð T)¤$* Ðthen€the€bifurcated€hearing€contemplated€by€òòHodgesóó€as€to€the€amount€of€punitiveÐ ø*H&, Ðdamages€must€occur€under€òòHodgesððóó€instructions.€€When€the€jury€returns€with€itsÐ œ,ì'. Ðverdict€as€to€the€amount€of€punitive€damages€following€the€bifurcation€hearing,Ð @.)0 Ðthen€and€then€only€the€plaintiff€must€elect€whether€he€will€take€the€multipleÐ ä/4+2 Ðdamages€assessed€under€the€trebling€statute€or€the€punitive€damages€awardedÐ ˆ1Ø,4 Ðunder€òòHodgesóó.€€He€cannot€have€both.Ð ,3|.6 ÐÌÌÐ 8h3< ÐVIII.€€€CONCLUSIONÐ ° Ðà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€newÐ T¤ Ðtrial€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ð øH ÐÌà ` àCosts€are€assessed€against€the€appellee€for€which€execution€may€issue.Ð @  Ðà ` àÌÌòòóóÓ€ÓÔ_Ôà ` àà ¸ àà z àà < àà À à_______________________________________Ð ,|  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà z àà < àà À àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ D”  ÐÌÌCONCUR:Ð ŒÜ ÐÌÌ_______________________________________Ð Ô$ ÐBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.Ð ì< ÐÌÌCONCURRING€IN€PARTÐ 4„ ÐAND€DISSENTING€IN€PARTÐ Lœ ÐÔ_ÔWILLIAMÔ_Ô€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÔ#†¼>r»»&¼…Ô©.#Ô