WPC ( S⮴2,FDzs!^0Cw1jVh#)`\:$Jf[XXf@ ڒinQA! 1+\d#opq_A5LuPy;#|s!Y[ [Kw^;#6ѩ-ÀcPX"塥N~MG򸚬{]cWB)Sp +K45M׉1dFG0H~[S*>j`a 3`ֳ͓Δ@P),VZ꿢Y)Mƴ\X j<߷f@`RRcJɿppă.,F,`˞3ǑMK_}&GKh TX3,NM ٲ=EDEIS C|%K{ڭ9DG`n_F>%ATKNOXVILLE ̜DONDAYandKIMDAY,onbehalf  )C/ANO.03A019811CV00372   ofthemselvesandallotherssimilarly  )   situated,   <     )ROANECIRCUIT    4    <     ) 4 PlaintiffsAppellants,    )HON.RUSSELLSIMMONS,JR.,    4    <     )JUDGEv. 4    <     )   4    <     )GENERALMOTORSACCEPTANCE  )  CORPORATION,  <     )AFFIRMED   4    <     )AND 4 DefendantAppellee.    )REMANDED  ̜GORDONBALL,Knoxville,forPlaintiffsAppellants.STEPHENG.ANDERSONandANDREWL.COLOCOTRONIS,BAKER,DONELSON,BEARMAN&CALDWELL,P.C.,Knoxville,forDefendantAppellee.@N N  MEMORANDUMOPINION   #  1      ׈ )""  4    <      D   Franks,J. 4  ThisactionwasdismissedbytheTrialJudgeforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbegranted,pursuanttoT.R.C.P.12.02(6). 4  TheallegedfactsinthiscaseareIDENidenticalinallmaterialrespects,tothe 3+,S allegedfactsinHarveyv.FordMotorCreditCo.,1999WL356301(Tenn.App.).   4  PlaintiffsDonandKimDaypurchasedavehiclefromaChevroletdealerinRoaneCounty.PlaintiffsfinancedthevehiclethroughthedealeranddefendantGeneralMotorsAcceptanceCorporation( GMAC).PlaintiffsfiledsuitagainstGMAC,allegingthatits dealerreservepracticeviolatestheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.TheTrialCourt,relyingonitspriordecisioninHarvey,   dismissedthecomplaintandplaintiffshaveappealed. 4  TheTrialCourtproperlydismissedplaintiffsSecondAmendedComplaint.ThecomplaintissubstantiallythesameinallmaterialrespectstothecomplaintinHarvey.TheSecondAmendedComplaintthereforesuffersfromthe  samedefectsandsimilarlyfailstostateaclaimundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct. 4  PlaintiffscitecasesconstruingIllinoislawtosupporttheirposition.Thesecasesallinvolvedsalesofextendedwarrantiesandaredistinguishable.InBernhauserv.GlenEllenDodge,683N.E.2d1194(Ill.App.1997),thecourtdidnot # expresslydecidetheissueofproximatecause.InBambillav.EvanstonNissan,Inc., % 1996WL284954at*5(N.D.Ill.1996),thecourtaddressedproximatecause:XPYX0 4 0 4(#4(##XXPY'#ԀPlaintiffscanprovedamagesasaproximatecauseiftheycaninduce )"" thetrieroffacttobelievethattheywouldhavecanceledtheirdealsiftheyfoundoutthattheywereactuallypayingmoreforthecarsthantheythoughtorthattheywouldnothaveenteredintotheservicecontractsiftheyhadknownthattheywereincurringanupcharge.  (# (#  4  AlthoughplaintiffscontendtheymadesimilarallegationsintheirSecondAmendedComplaint,therecorddoesnotsupporttheirposition.Cirone 1** Shadowv.UnitedNissanofWaukegan,955F.Supp.938(N.D.Ill.1997),issimilarly 3,, distinguishable. 4  WeadoptourreasoningsetforthintheHarveyopinion,aswellasour 700 opiniononthePetitiontoRehearinthatcase,andaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrial 922 МCourtaandremand.Weassessthecostoftheappealtotheappellants.@+ D  0(   4    <     __________________________ 4,   4    <     HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.