ÿWPCb! …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 @ 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘B)ÏDCø AM;U*ˆö²Ú¨Z‚ D3Ü BÚ, 0@ÐF÷_ v~lvÓê AO½Æ 0DÒ D/! BE!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ª« ¬ ­ ® ¯£°±D²Ó€¼DÒ ßÁáÂâÄäÀà3|x¼((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ìÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌAugust€14,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÐÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝACPC€engages€in€the€manufacture€and€sale€of€aluminum€electrical€conductors.€Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€was€alleged€that€Alutech€is€the€parent€company€of€ACPC.€The€trial€court€directed€aÏverdict€in€favor€of€Alutech€as€to€all€claims€and€entered€judgment€accordingly.€€Alutech€is€not€a€partyÏto€this€appeal.Ì++++'ÿÿdxd d ÐÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€complaint€alleges€that€Mr.€Riviere€is€the€president€and€owner€of€ACPC.€€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÆÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€Cortezððs€wife,€Diana,€and€their€three€children,€Melisa,€Corina€and€Luis€joined€in€theÏsuit€alleging€to€be€third„party€beneficiaries€under€the€contracts.€€The€aforementioned,€in€addition€toÏMr.€Cortez,€are€the€appellees€in€this€appeal€and€hereinafter€will€be€referred€to€collectively€asÏð ðAppelleesðð€or€by€name.Ì íÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€alleged€misrepresentations€concerned€the€financial€stability€of€ACPC€and€itsÏrelationship€with€Alcoa.Ì UÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellants€do€not€argue€on€appeal€the€sufficiency€of€the€post„trial€motion€made€orally€atÏthe€trialððs€conclusion.€€Nor€do€we€find€merit€in€such€contention,€if€made,€in€light€of€Rules€59.02Ïand€7.02€T.R.C.P.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚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  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ à_______________________________________________________̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€%'$;+'h|EÚ` ç `€€Lß›Ìó óà à)ò òÌOSWALDO€ANTONIO€CORTEZó óà à)à àWilliamson€CountyÏChancery€Court€Ìò òand€DIANA€CORTEZ,€individuallyó óà à)à àNo.€21475Ìò òand€as€natural€parents€and€by€nextó óà à)Ìò òfriend€of€MELISA€CORTEZ,€CORINAó óà à)Ìò òCORTEZ,€and€LUIS€CORTEZ,€Minors,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiffs/Appellees.à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.€A.€NO.€01A01„9510„CH„00444Ìà à)Ìò òALUTECH,€INC.,€ACPC,€INC.,€andó óà à)Ìò òALFREDO€RIVIERE€in€both€hisó óà à)Ìò òcorporate€and€individual€capacity.ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendants/Appellants.à à)Ìà à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌFrom€the€Chancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€at€Franklin.Ìò òHonorable€Cornelia€A.€Clark,€Judge€ó óÌÌÌÌò òG.€Philip€Andersonó ó,ÌANDERSON€&€RANKIN,€Brentwood,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendants/Appellants.ÌÌÌÌò òLarry€D.€Ashworthó ó,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌò òPeter€D.€Heiló ó,€Nashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Plaintiffs/Appellees.ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òLILLARD,€J.€ó ó:€œ(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓà àThis€litigation€results€from€the€alleged€breach€of€an€employment€contract€byÏAppellants,€ACPC,€Inc.€(ACPC)€and€Alfredo€Riviere€(Riviere).€€In€the€spring€of€1990,€Appellee,ÏOswaldo€Antonio€Cortez,€a€native€Venezuelan,€relocated€his€wife€and€three€children€to€Brentwood,ÏTennessee€to€accept€an€offer€of€employment€with€ACPC.× ƒ( ××  ×€€The€offer€was€extended€in€writing€onÏMarch€1,€1990€to€include€ð ðcompensation€of€$5,000€(U.S.€Dollars)€per€monthðð,€ð ðrelocation€costsÏ(reasonable)ðð€and€ð ðtemporary€living€allowance€(reasonable€time).ðð€€During€this€time€period,€ACPCÏalso€assisted€Cortez€in€obtaining€an€H„1€non„immigrant€(temporary€worker)€visa€from€theÏImmigration€and€Naturalization€Service€(INS).€€Cortez€began€his€employment€in€the€position€ofÏManager€of€Business€Planning€on€May€1,€1990.€€His€employment€was€terminated€on€July€31,Ï1991.ÌÌà àA€complaint€was€filed€against€Alutech,€Inc.,× ƒ) ××  ×€ACPC€and€Riviere,€ð ðin€both€hisÏcorporate€and€individual€capacity,ðð× ƒ, ××  ×€alleging€ð ðbreach€of€an€express€contract€of€employment,€breachÏof€an€express€contract€to€procure€U.S.€permanent€residence€status,× ƒ. ××  ×€intentional€fraudulentÍmisrepresentation,€negligent€misrepresentation× ƒ/ ××  ×€and€promissory€estoppel.€€It€was€specificallyÏalleged€that€Mr.€Cortez€and€Appellants€agreed€to€an€employment€period€of€three€years€ð ðstartingÏMay€1,€1990€to€April€30,€1993ðð€and€that€Appellants€would€initiate€application€for€a€U.S.Ïpermanent€residency€visa€for€the€Appellees€after€residing€in€the€United€States€for€three€to€sixÏmonths.€€Appellees€alleged€that€Mr.€Cortez€terminated€his€employment€with€a€VenezuelanÏaluminum€manufacturing€corporation€in€order€to€accept,€and€in€reliance€upon,€Appellantsðð€offer€ofÏemployment.€€It€was€further€alleged€that€Mr.€Cortez€performed€all€the€terms€and€conditions€of€theÏcontracts€and€that€Mr.€Cortezððs€acceptance€of€Appellantsðð€offer€afforded€them€a€substantial€benefitÏother€than€the€services€which€he€was€hired€to€perform€which€constituted€additional€consideration.€€ÌÌà àAppellants€answered,€denying€all€material€allegations€of€the€complaint€andÏaffirmatively€asserting€that€Mr.€Cortezððs€employment€was€terminated€for€cause€or,€alternatively,€ifÏan€agreement€existed,€such€was€oral€and€barred€by€the€statute€of€frauds.€€Appellants€subsequentlyÏfiled€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€which€was€denied.ÌÌà àThe€case€proceeded€to€trial€before€a€jury€with€Appellantsðð€counsel€moving€for€aÏdirected€verdict€at€the€close€of€Appelleesðð€proof.€€The€motion€was€denied.€€Appellants€renewedÏtheir€motion€at€the€close€of€all€proof,€with€the€trial€judge€ð ðreserv[ing]€judgmentðð€thereon.ÌÌà àThe€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€ACPC€on€the€issue€of€breach€of€contract;€inÏfavor€of€ACPC€and€Riviere€on€the€issue€of€grossly€negligent€misrepresentation;€and€in€favor€ofÏRiviere€ð ðpersonally€and€individuallyðð€on€the€issue€of€fraudulent€misrepresentation.€€The€jury€foundÏin€favor€of€the€Appellees€against€ACPC€and€Riviere€ð ðin€his€corporate€capacitiesðð€on€the€issue€ofÏfraudulent€misrepresentation.€€The€jury€awarded€the€appellees€$50,000€in€damages€and€theÏChancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€entered€judgment€accordingly.€€At€the€conclusion€of€trial,ÍAppellantsðð€counsel€orally€requested€the€court€to€consider€a€motion€for€judgment€notwithstandingÏthe€verdict.€€Counsel€stated,€ð ð[i]f€the€court€would€want€to€entertain€[the€motion]€at€this€time€orÏprefer€us€to€file€a€formal€motion.ðð€€The€court€responded€that€it€ð ðnormally€require[d]€those€[to]€beÏfiled€in€writing.ðð€€No€post€trial€motions€were€filed€on€behalf€of€Appellants€other€than€one€to€stayÏthe€judgment€pending€the€outcome€of€this€appeal.ÌÌà àAppellantsðð€issues€on€appeal€are€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àI.€€The€court€below€erred€in€failing€to€grant€summaryÏjudgment€to€Defendants€on€the€issue€of€intentional€fraudulentÏmisrepresentation.ÌÌà8 àà àII.€€The€court€below€erred€in€failing€to€direct€a€verdict€inÏfavor€of€Defendants€following€Plaintiffsðð€presentation€of€evidence.ÌÌà8 àà àIII.€€There€is€no€evidentiary€support€in€the€record€for€theÏconclusion€reached€by€the€jury€below,€and€thus€a€reversal€isÏrequired.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAppellees€present€two€additional€issues:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àI.€€Whether€Appellants€are€entitled€to€have€this€Court€reviewÏthe€juryððs€verdict€where€they€did€not€file€the€requisite€post„trialÏmotion(s)€in€order€to€provide€the€Chancellor€with€the€initialÏopportunity€to€conduct€such€review.ÌÌà8 àà àII.€€Whether€Appellantsðð€attempt€to€gain€review€of€theÏChancellorððs€denial€of€their€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€properÏgiven€that€a€judgment€has€been€subsequently€rendered€after€a€trial€onÏthe€merits.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€first€address€the€issues€pertaining€to€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€AppellantsððÏmotion€for€summary€judgment.€€Appellees€argue€that€Appellants€cannot€properly€pursue€this€issueÏon€appeal€because€a€judgment€was€subsequently€rendered€after€a€trial€on€the€merits.€€Appellees€citeÏòòò òBradford€v.€City€of€Clarksvilleóóó ó,€885€S.W.2d€78€(Tenn.€App.€1994),€which€holds€that€ð ð[a]Ïtrial€courtððs€denial€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€predicated€upon€the€existence€of€a€genuineÍissue€of€material€fact,€is€not€reviewable€on€appeal€when€a€judgment€is€subsequently€rendered€after€aÏtrial€on€the€merits.ðð€€òòò òBradfordóóó ó,€885€S.W.2d€at€80;€òòò òAccord€Oliver€v.€Hydro„Vac€ServicesÏInc.óóó ó,€873€S.W.2d€694,€696€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€òòò òMullins€v.€Precision€Rubber€ProductsÏCorp.óóó ó,€671€S.W.2d€496,€498€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€ÌÌà àAppellants€counter€that€they€are€not€seeking€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€theirÏinitial€€summary€judgment€motion,€but€their€ð ðrenewedðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€during€theÏtrial€at€the€close€of€Appelleesðð€proof.€€They€argue€that€òòò òBradfordóóó ó€concerned€an€initial€summaryÏjudgment€motion€made€and€denied€before€the€commencement€of€trial.€€They€agree€that€the€summaryÏjudgment€motion€denied€by€the€trial€court€prior€to€trial€ð ðis€not€a€topic€ripe€for€appellate€review.ðð€ÏAppellants€further€assert€that€although€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€may€have€existed€at€the€timeÏof€the€initial€denial€of€the€motion,€its€existence€at€that€time€does€not€justify€a€subsequent€denial€of€aÏrenewed€motion€if€a€genuine€issue€of€fact€no€longer€exists.€€ÌÌà àThis€is€a€matter€of€mere€semantics.€€Obviously,€the€ð ðrenewed€motion€for€summaryÏjudgmentðð€at€the€close€of€Appelleesðð€proof€was€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict.€€It€was€even€arguedÏas€such€at€the€time€of€its€making€(albeit€Appellants€requested€that€they€be€allowed€to€rely€upon€theÏbrief€filed€in€support€of€their€summary€judgment€motion).€€Moreover,€the€standard€of€review,€asÏcorrectly€noted€by€the€trial€court,€was€the€same€whether€the€motion€be€designated€one€for€summaryÏjudgment€or€the€direction€of€a€verdict.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€White€v.€Methodist€Hosp.€Southóóó ó,€844ÏS.W.2d€642€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€In€any€event,€the€law€is€clear€in€this€jurisdiction€that€this€Court€isÏprecluded€from€entertaining,€as€alleged€error,€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€summary€judgmentÏmotion€(predicated€upon€the€existence€of€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact)€when€the€case€proceedsÏto€a€trial€on€the€merits€and€a€judgment€is€subsequently€rendered.€€We€find€it€immaterial€whether€theÏsummary€judgment€motion€was€made€prior€to€or€during€the€course€of€trial,€so€long€as€a€judgmentÏresults€after€a€trial€on€the€merits.ÌÌà àThis€leads€to€discussion€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Appellantsðð€motion€for€aÏdirected€verdict.€€Once€Appellants€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€at€the€close€of€Appelleesðð€proof,€itÏwas€incumbent€upon€them€to€renew€their€motion€at€the€close€of€all€the€proof€as€an€initial€step€toÏpreserving€the€issue€for€review€on€appeal.€€Rule€50.02€T.R.C.P.€€ð ðThe€motion€[for€directedÏverdict]€must€be€made€at€the€conclusion€of€all€the€proof€in€order€for€it€to€be€considered€by€the€trialÏcourt€on€a€post„trial€motion€and€by€this€court€on€appeal.ðð€€òòò òPotter€v.€Tuckeróóó ó,€688€S.W.2d€833,Ï835€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€from€the€record€that€Appellants€renewed€their€motion€for€a€directed€verdictÏat€the€close€of€all€the€proof.€€They,€however,€failed€to€file€any€post„trial€motions€for€either€a€newÏtrial€or€to€have€the€judgment€set€aside.€€Appellees€contend€that€Appellantsðð€omission€in€this€regardÏis€fatal€to€their€request€for€appellate€review.€€Appellees€cite€Rule€3(e)€T.R.A.P.€which€reads:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[I]n€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€beÏpredicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,Ïjury€instructions€granted€or€refused,€misconduct€of€jurors,€parties€orÏcounsel,€or€other€action€committed€or€occurring€during€the€trial€ofÏthe€case,€or€other€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€is€sought,€unlessÏthe€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;Ïotherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAppellants€contend€the€filing€of€a€motion€for€new€trial€was€not€necessary€in€thisÏcase€because€they€do€not€seek€a€new€trial.€€They€further€insist€that€the€filing€of€a€motion€inÏaccordance€with€Rule€50.02€T.R.C.P.€is€not€a€prerequisite€for€appellate€review€and€that€the€motionÏfor€directed€verdict€was€sufficient€to€preserve€the€issue€for€review€by€this€Court.€€They€argue,Ïð ð[b]ecause€the€motion€for€directed€verdict€was€denied,€judgment€in€accordance€with€the€motion€forÏdirected€verdict€would€naturally€have€been€denied€as€well.€€A€50.02€motion€.€.€.€would€thus€haveÏbeen€futile,€and€such€a€technical€requirement€would€serve€no€purpose.€.€.€.ðð€€ÌÌà àWe€first€consider€Appellantsðð€failure€to€file€a€new€trial€motion.€€A€motion€for€newÍtrial€is€considered€an€important€step€of€post„trial€and€appellate€procedure€in€jury€cases.€€ItÏspecifically€affords€the€trial€judge€the€opportunity€to€consider€or€reconsider€alleged€errorsÏcommitted€during€the€course€of€trial€or€other€matters€affecting€the€jury€or€the€verdict.€€òòò òMcCormicÏv.€Smithóóó ó,€659€S.W.2d€804,€806€(Tenn.€1983).€€Although€a€prerequisite€to€appellate€review€inÏcertain€cases,€in€accordance€with€Rule€3(e),€such€motion,€however,€is€not€necessarily€warranted€inÏall€cases€wherein€review€by€this€Court€is€sought.ÌÌà àThe€argument€that€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€is€necessary€for€review€of€a€trial€courtððsÏrefusal€to€grant€a€directed€verdict€was€expressly€rejected€by€the€court€of€appeals€in€òòò òRupe€v.ÏDurbin€Durco,€Inc.óóó ó,€557€S.W.2d€742€(Tenn.€App.€1976),€overruled€on€other€grounds,Ïòòò òCrosslin€v.€Alsupóóó ó,€594€S.W.2d€379€(Tenn.€1980).€€There,€the€plaintiffs€argued€that€appellateÏreview€was€precluded€because€the€defendant€had€failed€to€file€a€motion€for€new€trial,€but€insteadÏhad€chosen€to€file€a€motion€for€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict.€€òòò òRupeóóó ó,€557€S.W.2d€at€746.€ÏThe€defendant€countered€that€he€should€not€be€required€to€file€a€new€trial€motion€because€he€did€notÏdesire€a€new€trial.€€The€court€in€òòò òRupeóóó ó€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à[Plaintiffsðð]€contention€is€supported€in€the€case€of€òòò òMoore€v.ÏStandard€Life€and€Accident€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€504€S.W.2d€373Ï(Tenn.App.1972),€where€it€was€specifically€held€that:€ð ðA€motion€forÏnew€trial€is€indispensable€to€review€the€action€of€the€trial€judge€inÏrefusing€to€grant€a€directed€verdict.ððÌÌà8 àà àThe€òòò òMooreóóó ó€case€was€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€TheÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€The€[defendantððs]€motion€isÏpermissible€under€Rule€50.02€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àThere€is€no€doubt€that€the€defendantððs€post„trial€motion€isÏsufficient€for€the€purpose€of€an€appellate€review,€for€the€right€isÏexpressly€granted€under€Rule€50.02.€€Even€prior€to€Rule€50.02€theÏappellate€courts€recognized€that€as€to€legal€questions,€the€trial€courtððsÏactions€could€be€reviewed€upon€post„trial€motions€other€than€forÏnew€trial.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdóóó ó.€at€746„48€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àRule€50.02€T.R.C.P.€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àWhenever€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€made€at€the€close€ofÏall€the€evidence€is€denied€or€for€any€reason€is€not€granted,€the€courtÏis€deemed€to€have€submitted€the€action€to€the€jury€subject€to€a€laterÏdetermination€of€the€legal€questions€raised€by€the€motion.€€Within€30Ïdays€after€the€entry€of€judgment€a€party€who€has€moved€for€aÏdirected€verdict€may€move€to€have€the€verdict€and€any€judgmentÏentered€thereon€set€aside€and€to€have€judgment€entered€in€accordanceÏwith€the€partyððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict;€.€.€.€€A€motion€for€aÏnew€trial€may€be€joined€with€this€motion,€or€a€new€trial€may€beÏprayed€for€in€the€alternative.€€If€a€verdict€was€returned,€the€courtÏmay€allow€the€judgment€to€stand€or€may€reopen€the€judgment€andÏeither€order€a€new€trial€or€direct€the€entry€of€judgment€as€if€theÏrequested€verdict€had€been€directed.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€comments€to€this€rule€state:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€power€of€the€court€to€grant€a€directed€verdict€on€post„trialÏmotion,€either€following€a€verdict€or€in€event€of€a€mistrial€because€ofÏdisagreement€of€the€jury,€has€long€been€recognized€in€Tennessee.€ÏThis€Rule,€however,€does€permit€the€filing€of€a€post„trial€motion€forÏdirected€verdict€without€its€being€incorporated€into€a€motion€for€aÏnew€trial€as€has€been€the€practice€heretofore€followed,€although€theÏprior€practice€in€this€regard€is€still€permitted.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€court€in€òòò òRupeóóó ó€held€that€a€post„trial€motion€for€judgment€notwithstanding€theÏverdict€is€generally€restricted€to€two€specifications€of€error;€one€being€that€there€is€no€evidence€toÏsupport€the€juryððs€verdict.€€òòò òRupeóóó ó,€557€S.W.2d€at€748.€€òòò òRupeóóó ó€distinguished€this€post„trial€motionÏfrom€that€for€a€new€trial€which€allows€a€weighing€of€the€preponderance€or€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence.€€The€former€requires€a€determination€of€whether€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€supportÏthe€verdict.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€747„48.€€As€our€supreme€court€explained€in€òòò òHolmes€v.€Wilsonóóó ó,€551€S.W.2dÏ682€(Tenn.€1977):ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àA€post„trial€motion€for€the€entry€of€judgment€in€accordanceÏwith€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€made€during€the€trial€must€beÍgauged€by€the€usual€rules€relating€to€directed€verdicts.€€Those€rulesÏrequire€that€the€trial€judge,€and€the€appellate€courts,€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€opponent€ofÏthe€motion,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€his€or€her€favor,Ïdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence,€and€deny€the€motion€where€thereÏis€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€wholeÏevidence.€€A€verdict€should€not€be€directed€during,€or€after,€trialÏexcept€where€a€reasonable€mind€could€draw€but€one€conclusion.ÌÌà8 àà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àWhen€dual€motions€are€presented,€i.e.,€motions€for€aÏdirected€verdict€and€for€a€new€trial,€two€standards€of€considerationÏare€involved.€€On€motion€for€judgment€n.o.v.,€the€sole€concern€ofÏthe€trial€judge€is€the€existence€of€material€evidence€in€accordanceÏwith€the€above€criteria€whereas€on€motion€for€a€new€trial€he€has€aÏsubstantially€wider,€though€not€unbridled,€latitude€and€may€set€theÏverdict€aside€when€it€is€against€the€weight€of€the€evidence€or€whenÏthe€interests€of€justice€would€be€served€thereby.€€Thus€the€trial€judgeÏconsistently€may€overrule€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€or€forÏjudgment€n.o.v.€and€grant€or€deny€a€new€trial.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òHolmesóóó ó,€551€S.W.2d€at€685€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àAs€noted,€Appellants€did€not€file€a€motion€for€judgment€in€accordance€with€theÏmotion€for€a€directed€verdict.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€We€find€their€omission€in€this€regard€to€preclude€a€review€of€thisÏmatter€in€light€of€Rule€50.02€T.R.C.P.€and€also€Rule€36(a)€T.R.A.P.€which€states€that€ð ð[n]othingÏin€this€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€be€granted€to€a€party€.€.€.€who€failed€to€takeÏwhatever€action€was€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð€€WeÏdisagree€with€Appellantsðð€contention€that€the€filing€of€such€post„trial€motion€is€ð ðfutile.ðð€€TheirÏfailure€to€file€such€a€motion€denied€the€trial€court€the€opportunity€to€reconsider€its€former€decisionÏon€the€issue€and€the€legal€questions€raised€by€the€motion.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is,€accordingly,€affirmed€and€this€cause€remandedÍfor€Ìany€further€proceedings€herewith€consistent.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€ACPC,€Inc.€and€AlfredoÏRiviere,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÓ` Ü` È“XÓà à_______________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌLILLARD,€J.€(Concurs)›Ì