ÿWPCú …# VUFa %§ 0@­4í n­ w@½ 0„ý 0D Å Í 0JÍ 0T 0^k 0hÉ 0r1 0|£ 0† 0¥ 1u5U,ª 0dÖ B:U,WU6ƒ D3¹B)ìDC 0@X AM˜U*åC^R °K¹v~vÓ‚ AOUƤ 0Dj D/® BݘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Óà~| ¡Ó 3|xÒ«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXXxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@ ¾¿DÀÁDÂEÃÄDÅÆËÇÓ€(4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New&&&&'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òApril€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòAt€a€later€hearing,€the€court€awarded€the€plaintiffs€attorney's€fees€inÏthe€amount€of€$9,000.00€and€discretionary€costs€in€the€amount€of€$926.50.óóÌ ÿÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòWe€deem€it€unnecessary€to€set€out€the€terms€of€the€contract.óóÌ AÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòFor€comparison€purposes,€Mr.€Cobble€estimated€the€damages€to€beÏ$8,990.00.€€Mr.€Brock€estimated€the€damages€to€be€$113,256.85.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€((X„d&ÓÑ#€((Xd#ÑÔ€)ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€)êXXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€.0,;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€R.€œDAUGHERTY›€and€wife€€€)à àKNOXÏCHANCERYÌBARBARA€œDAUGHERTY,›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9512„CH„00429Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€FREDERICK€€D.€œMcDONALD›Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌSANDOR€L.€BRAUN€and€DON€€€€€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌANDERSON,€Individually,€and€€€€€)ÌSANDOR€L.€BRAUN€and€DON€€€€€€€€€)ÌANDERSON€as€Co„Partners€€€€€€€€€)Ìassociated€and€in€business€as€€€)ÌBRAUN„ANDERSON€PARTNERSHIP€and€€)ÌBRAUN€CONSTRUCTION€CORPORATION,€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌÌC.€MARK€œTROUTMAN›,€œMcCord›€&€œTroutman›,€Knoxville,€for€Appellants.ÌÌÌœBEECHER›€A.€BARTLETT,€JR.,€and€ADRIENNE€L.€ANDERSON,€œKramer›,ÏœRayson›,€œLeake›,€œRodgers›€&€Morgan,€Knoxville,€for€appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThis€case€originated€as€an€action€seeking€damages€for€breachÏof€a€construction€contract.€€After€a€lengthy€bench€trial,€theÏcourt€found€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs€against€the€defendant,ÏBraun€Construction€Company€only€and€dismissed€the€action€as€to€theÏremaining€defendants.€€He€likewise€dismissed€a€œcounterclaim›€filedÏby€Braun€Construction€Company.€€Judgment€was€duly€entered€in€favorÏof€the€plaintiffs€in€the€amount€of€eighteen€œthousand,›€three€hun…dred€eighteen€dollars€and€three€cents€($18,318.03).€€The€plain…tiffs€appealed.œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›ÌÌà@ àò òISSUESó óÌÌà àThe€issues€presented€for€our€review€are€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà à1.à àThe€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€plain‚tiffs'Ïaction€against€Anderson€œand›€Braun€in‚dividually.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà0 àà àA.à àThe€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€holdÏAnderson€liable€as€a€partner€with€Braun€Conƒstruction.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà0 àà àB.à àAnderson€and€Braun€are€liable€for€the€damagesÏresulting€from€the€breach€of€the€impliedÏwarranty€of€workmanship.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à2.à àThe€trial€court€erred€in€its€award€of€damages€toÏthe€plaintiffs.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà0 àà àA.à àThe€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€awardÏPlaintiffs€damages€for€defendants'€failure€toÏconstruct€a€pond.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà0 àà àB.à àThe€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€awardÏplaintiffs'€damages€for€the€sewer€repairs.ÌÌÓÓÌà@ àò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óÌÌà àUnder€our€standard€of€review€we€are€required€to€presume€theÏcorrectness€of€the€judgment€on€a€òòde€novoóó€review€unless€the€prepon…derance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.;€òòStateÏFarm€v.€Jenkinsóó,€764€S.W.2d€547€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€Inherent€inÏthis€standard€is€the€significant€element€of€witness€credibility,€aÍdetermination€of€which€by€the€Chancellor€is€well„nigh€conclusive.ÏòòWalls€v.€Magnolia€Truck€Linesóó,€622€S.W.2d€526€(Tenn.€1981);€òòJonesÏv.€Jonesóó,€784€S.W.2d€349€(Tenn.€App.€1989);€òòBowman€v.€Bowmanóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€563€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€This€presumption€does€not€attach€toÏconclusions€of€law€of€the€trial€court.€€òòPresley€v.€Bennettóó,€860ÏS.W.2d€857,€859€(Tenn.€1993);€òòHill€v.€Tennessee€Rural€Health€Imƒprovement€œAss'n›óó,€882€S.W.2d€801€(Tenn.€App.€1994).ÌÌà@ àò òBACKGROUNDó óÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Sandor€Braun,€was€in€the€construction€businessÏin€Florida.€€He€came€to€Tennessee€to€build€a€home€for€his€brother„in„law€and€sister„in„law.€€While€œhere,›€he€found€a€lot€in€ChannelÏPoint€œsubdivision€on›€which€he€wanted€to€build€a€house€for€specula…tion€purposes.€€When€he€applied€to€the€bank€for€a€constructionÏloan,€the€bank€refused€the€loan€because€he€had€been€in€TennesseeÏsuch€a€short€time.€€The€bank€informed€Mr.€Braun€that€he€needed€aÏlocal€co„signer€to€obtain€the€financing.ÌÌà àThe€de‚fendant,€Mr.€Anderson,€was€the€listing€agent€for€Chan…nel€Point€subdivision€which€was€being€developed€by€Dr.€Ronald€L.ÏKilgore,€who€is€not€a€party€to€this€œaction.›€€Mr.€Braun€approachedÏMr.€Anderson€regarding€a€possible€partnership€between€them€forÏconstruction€financing.€€He€and€Mr.€Braun€ultimately€entered€intoÏan€agreement€whereby€Mr.€Anderson€would€be€the€selling€agent€forÏthe€house€and€would€receive€a€œ6›€percent€œcommission;›€Mr.€AndersonÏand€his€wife€would€be€obligated€œon€ð@ð›€of€the€interest€on€theÏconstruction€loan€until€the€house€sold;€Mr.€Braun€would€receive€aÏweekly€salary€of€$500.00;€and€Mr.€Anderson€would€receive€œð@ð›€of€theÏprofits€from€the€sale€of€the€house€after€all€expenses€were€œdeduct…ed.›€ÌÌà àThe€lot€was€purchased€and€a€warranty€deed€was€prepared,Ïexecuted€and€delivered€whereby€Dr.€Kilgore€and€his€wife€trans…ferred€title€to€Mr.€Braun€and€his€wife,€and€Mr.€Anderson€and€hisÏœwife.›€€Thereafter,€construction€was€begun€on€the€house.€€WhileÏconstruction€was€in€progress,€the€plaintiffs,€Mr.€œand›€Mrs.ÏDaugherty€became€interested€in€purchasing€the€property.€€TheÏplaintiffs€entered€into€a€contract€with€Braun€Construction€CompanyÍwhereby€Braun€Construction€Company€agreed€to€sell€the€lot€andÏexisting€structure€to€the€plaintiffs,€however€since€the€construc…tion€was€not€completed,€changes€and€upgrades€were€made€at€theÏrequest€of€the€plaintiffs.€€Braun€Construction€Company€agreed€toÏcomplete€the€structure€in€accordance€with€the€contract.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€TheÏcontract€was€executed€between€the€plaintiffs€and€Braun€Construc…tion€Company€by€Sandor€L.€Braun,€President.€€None€of€the€otherÏdefendants€were€signatory€to€the€contract.€€In€due€course,€aÏwarranty€deed€was€prepared,€executed€and€delivered€whereby€theÏindividual€plaintiffs,€œMr.›€Braun€and€his€wife,€and€Mr.€AndersonÏand€his€œwife›€conveyed€title€to€the€property€to€the€plaintiffs.€ÏœThe›€plaintiffs€took€possession€of€and€occupied€the€premises€priorÏto€full€completion€of€the€house.€€After€taking€possession€of€theÏpremises€and€occupying€them,€the€plaintiffs€instituted€this€actionÏto€recover€damages€for€breach€of€contract.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àò òDISCUSSIONó óÌà@ àò òLiability€Issuesó óÌÌà àThe€plaintiffs€asserted€that€the€defendants€had€breachedÏtheirÔ'  Ô€contract€because€of€defective€workmanship€and€breach€of€warƒranties.€€The€œplaintiffs,›€œin›€their€œcomplaint,€asserted›€that€al…though€the€contract€was€executed€by€Sandor€Braun€in€his€capacityÏof€presi‚dent€of€Braun€Construction€Company,€the€actual€seller€ofÏthe€property€was€Braun„Anderson€Partnership.ÌÌà àExtensive€evidence€was€presented€before€the€trial€court.€€AtÏthe€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€court€rendered€its€opinion€fromÏthe€bench,€stating€his€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€ÏThe€opinion€was€subsequently€transcribed€and€incorporated€into€theÏfinal€judgment€by€reference.€€The€court€found€that€the€plaintiffsÏhad€failed€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€thereÏwas€a€contractual€arrangement€between€the€plaintiffs€and€Mr.ÏAnderson€whereby€Mr.€Anderson€was€under€any€obligation€regardingÏthe€construction€of€the€house.€€Specifically,€the€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à...€The€burden€is€upon€the€plaintiffs€to€establish,Ïby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€there€was€aÏcontractual€arrangement€between€them€and€Mr.€Anderson,Ïobligating€Mr.€Anderson€with€respect€to€the€construc…tion.€€In€this€case,€as€will€be€hereinafter€noted,€muchÏof€the€right€of€one€claimant€or€the€other€depends€uponÏmeeting€the€burden€of€proof.€€Already€having€the€affir…mative€in€a€case€to€prove€something€must€prove€so€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€and€if€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate,€or€even€equally€balance,€then€thatÏparty€already€fails€to€prove€the€case€œthat€that›€party€isÏobligated€to€prove€in€order€to€prevail.ÌÌà8 àà àI€think,€weighing€the€evidence,€that€the€plaintiffsÏDaugherty€have€failed€to€prove€that€there€was€an€obliƒgation€of€the€partnership€to€carry€out€the€contractualÏobligations€of€the€Braun€Construction€Company.€TheÏparties€ð"ð€œplaintiffs›€entered€into€the€contract€expectingÏBraun€Construction€Company€to€be€the€party€obligatedÏwith€respect€to€construction,€and€they€did€not€look€toÏMr.€Anderson€or€the€Braun„Anderson€partnership,€whichÏwas€a€partnership€having€to€do€with€financing,€not€withÏconstruction.€€Therefore,€the€case€as€to€Mr.€AndersonÏand€as€to€Mr.€Braun,€insofar€as€Mr.€Braun€might€be€heldÏas€a€partner€of€the€Anderson„Braun€œ[sic]›€partnership,€isÏdismissed.ÌÌà8 àà àIs€Mr.€Braun€liable€for€the€obligations€of€theÏcorporation?€€Again,€the€answer€to€that€is€no.€€TheÏevidence€clearly€preponderates€in€favor€of€showing€thatÏplaintiffs€Daugherty€entered€into€a€contract€with€theÏBraun€Construction€Company.€€Mr.€Braun€signed€as€presi…dent€of€that€construction€company.€€Plaintiffs€clearlyÏknew€that€they€had€entered€into€a€contract€with€a€corpo…ration,€and€that€the€corporation€was€liable,€and€theÏsuit€will€be€dismissed€against€Mr.€Braun€completely,Ïincluding€as€a€corporate€owner€or€corporate€official.ÌÌÓÓÌà àAfter€our€review€of€the€record,€we€are€unwilling€to€say€thatÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€above€findings€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€To€the€contrary,€the€œrecord›€establishes€œconvincingly,›€thatÏthe€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€findings€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€We€find€no€merit€in€either€the€first€issue€or€its€sub„issues.ÌÌà@ àò òDamages€Issuesó óÌÌà àAs€to€the€second€issue€and€its€œsub„issues,›€it€is€equallyÏclear€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findingsÏof€the€trial€court€relating€to€damages.€€Each€party€presentedÏexpert€testimony€both€as€to€the€standards€of€building€and€workman…ship€prevailing€in€the€œarea,›€quality€of€workmanship€found€in€theÏsubject€œproperty,›€and€costs€of€repairs€or€damages.€ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€that€the€court€accredited€and€gave€more€weight€toÏthe€testimony€of€the€defendants'€expert,€Mr.€Gary€Cobble€as€op…posed€to€the€plaintiffs'€expert,€Mr.€Gary€Brock.€€Speaking€of€theÏexpert€testimony,€the€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à...€There€is€no€question€on€the€evidence€that€theÏcorporation€did€not€complete€a€significant€number€ofÏitems€which€result€in€an€amount€due€plaintiffs€by€theÏcorporation.€€An€expert,€Mr.€Brock,€has€testified€onÏbehalf€of€plaintiffs,€and€an€expert,€Mr.€Cobble,€hasÏtestified€on€behalf€of€defendants.€€Each€side€has€point…ed€out€some€deficiencies€by€way€of€error€of€fact€made€byÏthe€other's€expert.ÌÌà8 àà àMr.€Brock,€essentially,€was€not€testifying€as€anÏexpert€who€had€inspected€the€specific€premises€involvedÏhere,€and€rendered€an€opinion€that€something€specificÏwas€wrong.€€Mr.€Brock€testified€that,€assuming€thatÏcertain€work€had€to€be€done,€how€much€would€it€cost€toÏdo€the€work.€€Thus,€he€was€testifying€in€the€main€as€anÏexpert€who€gave€an€opinion€as€to€costs€and€expenses.€€HeÏdid,€however,€with€respect€to€some€items,€state€thatÏcertain€parts€of€the€performance€by€the€Braun€Corpora…tion,€were€not€up€to€local€standard.€€Putting€thatÏtogether€with€the€plaintiffs€having€pointed€out€certainÏsuch€defects€and€Mr.€Brock's€testimony€as€to€cost€ofÏrepair€of€the€same,€there€is€evidence€supporting€plain…tiffs'€claim.ÌÌà8 àà àOpposed€to€this€is€the€testimony€of€defendants'Ïexpert,€Mr.€Cobble.€€Mr.€Cobble€testified€with€respectÏto€specific€items€asserted€by€plaintiffs€to€be€defec…tive.€€Some€of€these€assertions€of€plaintiffs€Mr.€CobbleÏagreed€with,€and€he€testified€to€the€cost€of€repair€ofÏthe€same.€€He€gave€a€total€amount€of€punch€list€typeÏrepairs€or€breach€of€contract€repairs,€if€that€is€a€moreÏproper€term€ð"ð€it€makes€little€difference€ð"ð€in€the€amountÏof€eight€thousand,€nine€hundred€and€ninety€dollars.€€TheÏevidence,€we€think,€then,€at€a€minimum,€establishes€thatÏthe€plaintiffs€are€entitled€to€recover€that€amount.ÌÌà8 àà àWe€observed€that€Mr.€Brock€was€very€hesitant€in€hisÏtestimony€when€his€attention€was€directed€to€specificÍitems€of€damage,€and€he€was€very€cautious€in€recognizingÏthat€certain€things€would€be€not€up€to€standard,€but€heÏdid€not€directly€testify€from€observation€that€much€ofÏanything€was€not€up€to€standard.€€...€His€testimony€asÏto€expenses€was€based€upon€his€work€and€method€ofÏestabli‚shing€the€repair€costs€for€insurance€companiesÏwhich,€apparently,€have€to€do€more€with€repairing€fireÏand€smoke€damage,€and€that€sort€of€thing.€€According€toÏMr.€Brock,€he,€having€identified€various€items€to€beÏrepaired,€inserted€that€information€into€a€computerÏsystem,€which€operated€in€the€State€of€Ohio,€and€basedÏits€calculations€upon€regional€data,€presumable€thatÏincluding€this€area,€and€that€Mr.€Cobble€directly€dis…puted€the€validity€of€some€of€the€unit€costs€for€laborÏused€in€Mr.€Brock's€estimate.€€We€think€that€Mr.€CobbleÏwould€be€more€reliable€than€some€general€regional€dataÏwhich€might€include€areas€entirely€unrelated€or€littleÏrelated€to€the€Knoxville€Area.ÌÌà8 àà àFinally,€we€noted€that€Mr.€Brock€stated€that€theÏprice€that€the€company€he€works€for€would€repair€itemsÏin€plaintiffs'€home€€was€that€which€his€company€and€theÏinsurance€company€would€agree€to.€€This€suggests€thatÏMr.€Brock's€figures€are€somewhat€on€the€high€side€andÏgiven€with€the€idea€of€having€to€have€a€cushion€to€agreeÏand€end€up€with€the€satisfactory€agreement€with€theÏinsurance€company.€€òòIn€any€event,€Mr.€Brock€did€not€endÏup€giving€a€very€satisfactory€acceptable€repair€figureóó.Ï(Emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓÌà àThereafter,€the€court€beginning€with€the€base€damages€estab…lished€by€Mr.€Cobble,€òòi.eóó.,€eight€thousand,€nine€hundred€andÏninety€œdollars€($8,990.00),›€œadded€elements€of›€damages€which€theÏcourt€deemed€to€have€been€properly€established€by€a€preponderanceÍof€the€evidence.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€The€court€considered€each€alleged€œdefect›€forÏwhich€damages€were€œclaimed,€item€by€item.›€€He€arrived€at€the€totalÏdamages€to€which€the€plaintiffs€are€entitled,€as€hereinabove€setÏforth,€œat›€eighteen€œthousand,›€three€hundred€eighteen€dollars€andÏthree€cents€($18,318.03).ÌÌà àApplying€the€presumption€of€correctness€to€the€court's€find…ings€of€fact€as€we€are€required€to€do,€coupled€with€the€principleÏof€law€that€while€this€Court€is€not€bound€by€the€findings€of€theÏtrial€court,€it€looks€to€the€factual€circumstances€in€light€of€allÏappropriate€factors€for€evidence€sufficient€to€preponderateÏagainst€the€presumption€in€order€to€reverse€the€trial€court'sÏfindings.€òòLock€v.€National€Union€Fire€Insóó.,€809€S.W.2d€483,€487Ï(Tenn.€1991).€"Where€the€trial€judge€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses,Ïespecially€where€issues€of€credibility€and€weight€of€oral€testimo…ny€are€involved,€on€review€considerable€deference€must€still€beÏaccorded€to€those€circumstances."€òòJones€v.€Hartford€Accident€&ÏIndemnityóó,€811€S.W.2d€516,€521€(Tenn.€1991).€€Upon€appeal€from€aÍnon„jury€judgment,€this€Court€must€generally€defer€to€the€findingÏof€the€Trial€Court€as€to€the€weight€and€credibility€of€witnessesÏwho€testified€in€person.€òòDuncan€v.€Duncanóó,€686€S.W.2d€568€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1984).ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€establish€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€court's€judgment€in€any€respect.€€We€concur€withÏthe€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€and€we€find€no€error€of€law.€ÏWe,€therefore,€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€allÏrespects.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€to€the€appellants€and€this€case€is€remandedÏto€the€trial€court€for€the€collection€thereof.ÌÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€œJ.ÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€{XXd×XXd×7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌWILLIAM€R.€DAUGHERTY€and€wife€€€)à àKNOX€CHANCERYÌBARBARA€DAUGHERTY,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9512„CH„00429Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiffs„Appellants€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€FREDERICK€€D.€McDONALDÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌSANDOR€L.€BRAUN€and€DON€€€€€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌANDERSON,€Individually,€and€€€€€)ÌSANDOR€L.€BRAUN€and€DON€€€€€€€€€)ÌANDERSON€as€Co„Partners€€€€€€€€€)Ìassociated€and€in€business€as€€€)ÌBRAUN„ANDERSON€PARTNERSHIP€and€€)ÌBRAUN€CONSTRUCTION€CORPORATION,€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòORDERóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Knox€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÍUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€opinion€that€thereÏwas€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€all€res‚pects.ÏCosts€are€taxed€to€the€appellants€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€the€collection€thereof.ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAMÌ›