’WPC)* …# VUNa %Æ 0 (µU<ŻUD w@] 4 ± 0CĄ 0v y 0J 0TĖ 0^ 0h} 0rå 0|W 0†Ó 0Y 1ué U,^ 0dŠU,īU> BX D3uB)ØDCŃ 0@ AMTU*”"Ė‚ ķĮoM0w}?ōv~3!vÓ±" AO„(ĘÓ( 0D™) D/Ż) B *˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTĄĢĄä䥥Ģ0 (ČhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($””-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman8 ±ZŠ,Century-WP Regular 01U2E34D5U6 ī7Ӏ8ӀBDŅ 3|xB(’’$ņņŚ  ŚŚ  Śóó(-!2Vf$¤¤Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  ŻÓӀ€€€€ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d))))'’’dxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  Ņ€-,Cž’ << G’’< Œ 9p`(Arial Ż ƒ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŌ€ŌŌ€(ŌŻ  ŻŌ€/ŌŌ€/ŌÓ  Óņ ņŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€/XŌĢĢJuly€10,€1996ĢĢCecil€W.€CrowsonĢAppellate€Court€ClerkŌ  Ōó ó x Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€ŌŌ€(ŌŻ  ŻŻ ƒ $ŻÓӀ€€€€ņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ€ŌMr.Ō€Ō€Ō€ŌEdwards€testified€that€when€he€met€with€the€Bruces€on€theĻafternoon€of€October€6,€he€asked€Mr.€Bruce€about€the€drain€holes€whichĻwere€cut€in€the€basement€floor.€€Mr.€Edwards€testified,€š šAnd€we€alsoĻdiscussed€those€two€drain€holes,€and€I€asked€him,€'Are€those€drain€holesĻfor€any€water€that€comes€out€from€under€the€front€porch,€so€that€if€it€runsĻout€into€the€basement€that€will€divert€it€outside?'€And€he€said€yes."€€Mr.ĻEdwards€testified€that€this€conversation€was€in€regard€to€water€leakingĻon€the€west€wall,€and€that€he€did€not€see€the€pipe€running€to€the€east€wallĻof€the€basement€which€connected€with€one€of€the€holes€cut€in€the€floor.€ĻMr.€Edwards€also€testified€that€on€the€afternoon€of€the€6th,€he€also€did€notĻsee€the€š šditchesšš€which€had€been€cut€along€the€east€wall.€€However,€priorĻto€the€closing,€Mr.€Edwards€saw€the€"ditches"€which€had€been€cut€along€theĻnorth€and€west€walls,€but€he€testified,€€š š€I€did€not,€at€that€time,€realizeĻwhat€I€was€looking€at.šš€€Mr.€Edwards€testified€that€he€did€not€know€theĻš šditched€out€areasšš€were€part€of€the€drain€system,€he€simply€thoughtĻš šthat€was€just€the€way€the€concrete€floor€had€been€paved„„laid.šš€€Mr.ĻEdwards€testimony€€was€conflicting€as€to€exactly€how€much€of€theĻdrainage€system€he€saw,€and€whether€or€not€he€knew€that€what€he€wasĻobserving€was€in€fact€a€drainage€system.€€At€one€point€he€testified€that€heĻwas€aware€of€the€pipe€running€to€the€west€wall,€and€then€at€another€pointĻin€his€testimony,€he€stated€that€he€was€not€aware€of€any€of€the€pipes.€€OnĻcross€examination,€Mr.€Edwards€testified,ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€€So€before€closing€you€were€aware€of€theĻexistence€of€the€drainage€system?ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€€I€was€aware€of€this€portion€of€the€drainageĻsystem€(Indicating),€from€the€holes€in€the€floor€outĻto€the€drainpipe.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€€How€could€you€have€possibly€been€aware€of€theĻholes€in€the€floor€and€not€been€aware€of€the€pipeĻrunning€to€the€east€wall€and€aware€of€the€pipeĻrunning€to€the€west€wall?ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€€I€just€didnššt€see€that€part€of€it.€€It€was€coveredĻup€with€concrete€and€I€didnššt€have€any€idea€thereĻwas€a€pipe€in€that.ĢÓÓ ·Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€ŌŌ€(ŌŻ  ŻŌ€Ō€€€€€ņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóMs.€Mingle€testified€that€she€could€not€remember€Mr.€Bruce€everĻtelling€Mr.€Edwards€that€the€entire€basement€leaked.€€Ms.€Edwards€was€notĻcalled€as€a€witness€at€trial,€thus,€there€is€no€testimony€from€her€as€toĻwhether€Mr.€Bruce€informed€Mr.€Edwards€that€the€entire€basement€leaked.Ģ CŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€ŌŌ€(ŌŻ  ŻŌ€Ō€€€€€ņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóThis€testimony€was€offered€to€impeach€Mr.€Bruceššs€alleged€statementsĻto€Mr.€Edwards€that€the€crack€had€remained€š šunchangedšš€since€the€BrucesĻowned€the€home.€Ģ mŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€ŌŌ€(ŌŻ  ŻŌ€Ō€€€€€ņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŌ€ŌThe€defendants€are€in€effect€seeking€to€change€the€character€of€theseĻstatements€by€taking€them€out€of€context€and€relying€on€only€certainĻportions€of€the€statements.Ō€(ŌĢ 5Ż ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€ŌŌ€(ŌŻ  ŻŻ ƒ $ŻÓӀ€€€€ņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ€ŌMs.€Bruce€testified€that€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€house€wereĻdeposited€in€a€joint€marital€bank€account.ĢPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŲ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃMonacoŃŃ ŃŅ  BA Op Monaco ŅŅ  BA Op Monaco Ņ€-‚ƒCž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó„„'÷’ dxdü’P PdŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€ŌÓ&€''X„d&ÓŃ#€''Xd#ŃŌ€(ŌŻ  ŻŃ7€qXXdģdČ7ŃŃ  ŃÓ  ÓŃ  ŃŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŅ  ŅŅ „ ŅŌ€Ōą@ ąIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĢą@ ąWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEĢą ąą ą€€Ļ________________________________________________ĢĢņ ņEVERETT€EDWARDS€and€wife,€ĢKAREN€EDWARDS,€ó óĢĢą ąAppellees,Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąSumner€Chancery€No.€94C„101ĢVs.ą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąC.A.€No.€01A01„9510„CH„00458ĢĢņ ņROY€BRUCE€and€wife,€ĢJOANNE€BRUCE,€ó óĢĢą ąAppellants.ĢŌ€Ō___________________________________________________________________________ĢŌ€ŌĢą@ ąFROM€THE€SUMNER€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTĢĢą@ ąTHE€HONORABLE€TOM€E.€GRAY,€CHANCELLORĢŁ€€ŁßL€.0,;+'h|^°` ē `€€LßĢĢĢĢĢĢą@ ąĢĢą@ ąArthur€E.€McClellan€Ģą@ ąof€MeClellan,€Powers,€Ehmling€&€DixĢą@ ąof€Gallatin,€For€AppellantsĢĢą@ ąRonald€B.€Buchanan€of€HendersonvilleĢą@ ąFor€AppelleesĢĢĢą@ ąņ ņņņAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDĢĢą@ ąó óóóOpinion€filed:€€ĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąņ ņW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ĢĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEĢĢHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óĢĢĢŃ ° ŃÓÓŌ€Ō›ą ąThis€appeal€involves€a€suit€alleging€claims€of€negligentĻmisrepresentation,€fraudulent€misrepresentation,€and€violation€of€theĻTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€T.C.A.€Ō€Ōšš€Ō€Ō47„18„101€(1995),€ņņetĻseqóó.,€arising€out€of€the€sale€of€certain€improved€real€property€inĻGallatin,€Tennessee.€€The€facts€are€as€follows.Ģą ąIn€1978,€defendants„appellants,€Roy€Bruce€and€Joanne€œBruce,›Ļpurchased€a€new€home€located€in€Gallatin,€Tennessee.€€Shortly€afterĻmoving€into€their€new€home,€the€Bruces€discovered€water€leaking€intoĶthe€basement,€and€an€88€foot„long€crack€which€extended€along€the€eastĻwall€of€the€basement.€€Mr.€Bruce€attempted€to€alleviate€the€waterĻproblem€by€painting€the€crack€with€a€water€sealant,€but€the€basementĻcontinued€to€leak.€€In€December€of€1983,€Mr.€Bruce€dug€trenches€at€theĻintersection€of€the€basement€walls€and€the€concrete€floor,€and€heĻinstalled€a€drainage€system€in€the€trenches€in€an€attempt€to€remove€theĻwater€from€the€basement.€€The€drainage€system€consisted€of€pipesĻalong€the€walls€of€the€basement€and€drain€holes€which€were€cut€in€theĻfloor.€€The€water€that€collected€along€the€walls€and€drained€into€theĻholes€in€the€floor€was€supposed€to€drain€into€a€pipe€that€exited€theĻgarage.€€Ģą ąIn€1991,€the€Bruces€listed€their€home€for€sale€through€MartinĻRealty€House€and€realty€agent€Nancy€Jo€Martin.€€At€the€time€of€theĻlisting,€Mr.€Bruce€described€the€houseššs€water€problem€to€Ms.€Martin,Ļand€Ms.€Martin€noted€the€problem€in€her€real€estate€folder.€€Ms.€MartinššsĻnotes€contained€the€following€underlined€phrase:€š šņņbasement€leaking€hasĻbeen€definitely€controlled.ó󚚀€The€defendants€contend€that€they€neverĻtold€Ms.€Martin€that€the€leaking€problem€had€been€š šcontrolled,šš€rather,Ļthey€contend€that€Ms.€Martin€concluded€on€her€own€that€the€leakingĻproblem€had€been€controlled.€€€Ģą ąIn€April€of€1993,€the€defendants€again€listed€their€home€for€saleĻthrough€Ms.€Martin.€€At€the€time€of€the€new€listing,€Ms.€Martin€did€notĻobtain€any€new€information€on€the€home,€she€simply€relied€upon€theĻinformation€she€obtained€on€the€home€when€it€was€listed€for€sale€inĻNovember€of€1991.Ģą ąIn€October€of€1993,€plaintiffs„appellees,€Everett€Edwards€andĻKaren€Edwards,€contacted€realtor€Mary€Mingle,€an€affiliate€with€Beck€&ĻBeck€realtors,€and€informed€Ms.€Mingle€that€they€were€interested€inĻpurchasing€a€home€in€the€Nashville€area.€€Ms.€Mingle€contacted€Ms.ĻMartin€and€the€two€set€up€an€appointment€on€October€6,€1993,€for€theĻplaintiffs€to€look€at€the€defendantsšš€home.€€In€the€afternoon€of€OctoberĻ6th,€Ms.€Martin€walked€the€plaintiffs€through€the€Brucesšš€home,€and€theĻplaintiffs€inspected€the€home€for€approximately€one€and€one„half€hours.€ĻThe€Edwardses€inspected€the€exterior€and€interior€of€the€homeĻincluding€the€basement.€€During€their€inspection€the€Edwardses€noticedĻthe€crack€in€the€basement€wall,€the€holes€cut€in€the€basement€floor,€andĻat€least€some€of€the€drain€pipes€which€were€installed€along€theĻbasement€floor€and€walls.× ƒ1 ××  ׀€The€Edwardses€also€noticed€that€the€crackĶin€the€east€wall€had€been€painted€with€water€sealant,€and€that€theĶframe€to€one€of€the€basement€doors€was€rotting.Ģą ąFollowing€the€Edwardses'€inspection€of€the€home,€Ms.€MingleĻtelephoned€€Ms.€Martin€from€the€Brucesšš€home€to€inquire€about€theĻstatus€of€the€water€problem.€€Ms.€Mingle€testified€that€Ms.€Edwards€wasĻpresent€in€the€room€when€€she€called€Ms.€Martin,€and€that€she€(Ms.ĻMingle)€related€her€conversation€with€Ms.€Martin€to€Ms.€Edwards.€€WithĻrespect€to€the€conversation€between€her€and€Ms.€Martin,€Ms.€MingleĻtestified€as€follows:€ĢÓÓą8 ąą8 ąQ.€€Did€you€have€occasion€to€call€Ms.€Martin€fromĻthe€home?Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€€Yes,€I€did.Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€€Why€did€you€call€Ms.€Martin?Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€€Well,€when€we€went€down€into€the€basementĻthere€were€squares€cut€into€the€floor,€and€thereĻwas€some€question€could€it€possibly€be€thatĻwater€comes€into€the€basement.€€And€I€told€theĻEdwards€at€the€time,€I€said,€what€we€need€to€doĻis€call€Nancy€Jo€Martin€and€see€what€the€reasonĻis€for€the€squaresĢą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ą*€*€*Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€Ms.€Mingle,€what€did€Ms.€Martin€tell€you€aboutĻthe€basement?Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€She€said€yes,€that€at€one€time€they€did€have€aĻwater€problem,€and€that€he,€that€Roy€was€veryĻparticular€and€very€meticulous€and€that€he€hadĶspent€a€great€deal€of€time€and€money€to€repairĻthis€and€that€if€water€did€come€into€theĻbasement€it€should€go€out€of€the€holes.€€InĻessence,€that€it€was€fixed.Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ą*€*€*Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąTHE€COURT:€Thatššs€a€question€that€the€witnessĻwill€have€to€state€whether€or€not€sheššs€puttingĻher€own€conclusion€or€is€that€what€„„Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąTHE€WITNESS:€No,€Nancy€Martin€told€me€that€theĻbasement€was€fixed,€that€Roy€had€fixed€it,€was€IĻbelieve€the€correct€word.Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€Did€she€make€any€representations€to€whetherĻany€water€had€gotten€into€the€basement€afterĻthe€repairs€had€been€made?Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€No,€she€did€not€say€that.Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€Did€you€tell€Mrs.€Edwards€verbatim,€the€bestĻyou€„„€what€Ms.€Martin€told€you€in€thatĻconversation?Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€Yes,€I€did.€€She€was€standing€beside€me€andĻpart€of€the€conversation,€as€it€was€coming€to€meĻI€was€repeating€it,€and€Karen€was€standing€thereĻby€me€and€I€would€say€things€and€Karen€wouldĻkindly€say€ask€her€this.€€So€Karen€was€hearing€aĻgreat€deal€of€it€as€I€was€repeating€it€back€on€theĻphone.€ĢÓÓą ąĢą ąMs.€Martin€testified€that€she€did€not€remember€telling€Ms.€MingleĻthat€there€had€only€been€standing€water€in€the€basement€on€oneĶoccasion.€€Ms€Martin€testified€that€she€did€tell€Ms.€Mingle€that€Mr.€BruceĻwas€a€perfectionist€and€that€he€had€taken€š šelaborate€stepsšš€toĻš šcontrolšš€the€water€problem,€but€that€she€never€told€Ms.€Mingle€that€theĻproblem€had€been€š šfixed€or€stopped.šš€€Ms.€Martin€also€testified€that€theĻstatement€in€her€real€estate€folder€that€the€š šbasement€leaking€ha[d]Ļbeen€definitely€controlledšš€was€her€conclusion€based€upon€herĻinspection€of€the€home€and€Mr.€Bruceššs€explanation€of€the€drainageĻsystem.€€ą ąThe€Edwardses€left€the€Bruce€home€that€afternoon€stillĻconcerned€about€the€basement,€so€Ms.€Martin€arranged€a€meetingĻbetween€the€Edwardses€and€the€Bruces€in€order€for€the€Edwardses€toĻask€questions€regarding€the€house€and€to€inquire€about€the€drainageĻsystem€which€Mr.€Bruce€had€installed€in€the€basement.€€Mr.€EdwardsĻtestified€that€prior€to€the€meeting,€he€and€Ms.€Edwards€returned€to€Ms.ĻMingleššs€office€at€which€time€they€were€shown€Ms.€Martinššs€real€estateĻnotes€on€the€house€which€contained€the€underlined€words,€š šņņbasementĻleaking€has€been€definitely€controlledóó.šš€€Ģą ąThe€meeting€was€held€at€the€Bruces'€home€at€5:30€p.m.€on€€OctoberĻ6th,€and€the€Bruces,€Edwardses,€Ms.€Martin€and€Ms.€Mingle€were€presentĻat€the€meeting.€€At€the€meeting,€Mr.€Edwards€specifically€asked€Mr.ĻBruce€whether€the€basement€leaked.€€On€direct€examination€Mr.€EdwardsĶtestified€regarding€the€conversation€between€him€and€Mr.€Bruce€asĻfollows:ĢÓÓą8 ąą8 ąDuring€my€conversations€with€Mr.€Bruce€I€hadĻasked€him„„I€had€asked€him€about€the€basement.€ĻI€said€that€I€had€noticed€some€evidence€thatĻthere€had€been€some€water€leakage€on€the€wall,Ļon€the€rear€wall,€also€there€was€a€crack€in€thatĻwall;€and€I€had€mentioned€that€I€had€seen€theĻtwo€rectangular€drain€holes€in€the€floor€of€theĻbasement.Ģą8 ąą8 ąą ąAnd€I€asked€him€about€that,€and€he€statedĻthat€they€had€worked€on€the€basement€and€thatĻthere€had€been€a€water€leakage€problem€in€theĻpast€but€that€had€been€taken€care€of€and€the€onlyĻarea€that€I€had€to€be€concerned€about€was€theĻfront€porch€area.€€And€he€said€that€area€stillĻexperienced€some€leakage€under€heavy€rainĻconditions€and€that€if€I€put€anything€on€the€floorĻin€that€area€it€could€get€wet.€€Ģą ąą8 ąą8 ą*€*€*Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€€And€thatššs€the€only€area€he€represented€couldĻhave€some€water€in€it?Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€€Thatššs€correct.€€And€when€I€asked€him€whatĻthe€drain€holes€in€the€floor€were€for€he€statedĻœthat€that›€was€to€catch€any€overflow€from€thisĻarea€(Indicating)[front€porch€area],€if€it€ran€outĻof€this€area€it€would€run€over€here€(Indicating)Ļand€then€there€was€a€drainpipe€that€ran€out€toĻthe€outside€of€the€house,€out€to€the€end€of€theĻgarage.Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€€And€what„„were€there€any€other€commentsĻthat€he€made€concerning€the€condition€of€theĻbasement€or€water€in€the€basement?Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€€He€said€that€since€he€had€worked€on€œit€it›€hadĻremained€š šbone€dry,šš€and€that€there€was€noĻconcern€except€for€the€area€under€the€frontĻporch.Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€€And€was€that€exception€acceptable€to€you?Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€€Yes.Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąQ.€€You€also€mentioned€„„was€that€all€theĻconversation€concerning€the€water€in€theĻbasement?Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ąA.€€I€believe€that€was€all,€that€was€all€we€talkedĻabout.€€Once€he€told€me€that€I€was€no€longerĻconcerned€about€it.ĢÓÓą ąĢą ąMr.€Edwards€also€testified€that€he€asked€Mr.€Bruce€about€the€88Ļfoot„long€crack€in€the€wall,€and€that€Mr.€Bruce€told€him€that€the€crackĻhad€been€in€the€wall€since€the€Bruces€bought€the€house€and€hadĻremained€unchanged€for€the€last€fifteen€years.€€Mr.€Edwards€furtherĻtestified€that€he€discovered€that€this€representation€was€false€when€heĻdiscovered€that€the€crack€had€been€remortared€in€1991.Ģą ą€Mr.€Bruce,€on€the€other€hand,€testified€that€when€Mr.€EdwardsĻasked€him€about€the€leakage€problem,€he€specifically€told€Mr.€Edwards,Ļš šLet€me€just€put€it€to€you€like€this,€If€I€have€anything€I€didnššt€want€toĻget€wet€I€would€not€put€it€in€the€basement.šš€€Mr.€Bruce€testified€that€heĶnever€told€Mr.€Edwards€that€the€leakage€problem€was€confined€to€theĻarea€under€the€front€porch;€rather,€he€told€Mr.€Edwards€that€the€entireĻbasement€leaked.€€Ms.€Bruce€and€Ms.€Martin€also€testified€that€Mr.€BruceĻdid€in€fact€tell€Mr.€Edwards€that€the€entire€basement€leaked,€and€thatĻMr.€Bruce€clearly€informed€Mr.€Edwards€that€the€leakage€was€notĻconfined€to€the€area€under€the€front€porch.× ƒ2 ××  ׀Ģą ąThe€Edwardses€allege€that€Mr.€Bruce's€explanations€regarding€theĻwater€problem€were€satisfactory,€thus,€at€8€p.m.€on€October€6,€1993,Ļthey€made€the€Bruces€an€offer€to€purchase€the€house.€€The€partiesĻexecuted€a€Contract€for€the€Sale€of€Real€Estate€whereby€the€EdwardsesĻpurchased€the€property€from€the€defendants€for€the€sum€ofĻ$169,900.00.€€Ģą ąThe€real€estate€closing€occurred€on€November€30,€1993.€€DuringĻthe€course€of€the€closing,€Mr.€Edwards€and€Mr.€Bruce€again€discussed€theĻleakage€problem€in€the€basement.€€Mr.€Edwards€testified€that€he€and€Mr.ĻBruce€discussed€the€leakage€problem€for€about€five€minutes,€and€thatĻMr.€Bruce€again€assured€him€that€the€basement€had€remained€š šbone€dryššĶduring€recent€heavy€rains.€€Mr.€Edwards€testified€that€he€did€not€haveĻthe€basement€inspected€by€a€professional€engineer,€because€he€had€beenĻassured€by€Mr.€Bruce€that€the€water€problem€had€been€corrected.€€Mr.ĻBruce,€on€the€other€hand,€testified€that€he€discussed€the€water€problemĻwith€Mr.€Edwards€for€approximately€one€and€one„half€hours,€and€that€heĻnever€represented€that€the€basement€had€been€or€would€be€dry.€€Mr.ĻBruce€also€testified€that€Mr.€Edwards€asked€him€about€another€crack€inĻthe€garage€which€he€(Edwards)€had€not€previously€noticed.€€Mr.€BruceĻtestified€that€he€informed€Mr.€Edwards€that€the€crack€had€always€beenĻthere€and€that€nothing€more€was€said€about€the€crack.€€Ģą ąShortly€after€the€closing,€the€plaintiffs€assumed€possession€ofĻthe€property.€€On€December€3,€1993,€the€entire€basement€flooded€after€aĻheavy€rain.€€On€December€9,€1994,€the€basement€flooded€again,€and€itĻcontinued€to€flood€on€numerous€occasions€thereafter.€€Mr.€EdwardsĻtestified€that€sometime€during€this€period,€he€discovered€that€a€boardĻwhich€was€attached€to€some€garage€shelves€concealed€some€of€theĻworst€cracks€in€the€basementššs€rear€wall.€€Ģą ąAfter€the€initial€flooding,€Mr.€Edwards€contacted€Dr.€Ronald€Jones,Ļa€contractor€who€holds€a€Ph.D.€in€geotechnical€engineering,€and€askedĻDr.€Jones€to€inspect€the€basement,€determine€the€cause€of€the€flooding,Ķand€estimate€the€cost€of€repairing€the€basement.€€Dr.€Jones€inspectedĻthe€basement€and€determined€that€the€rear€wall€of€the€basement€was€inĻa€state€of€š šactive€failure,šš€meaning€that€the€wall€was€no€longerĻstructurally€capable€of€supporting€the€weight€of€the€house.€€Dr.€JonesĻopined€that€the€weakening€of€the€wall€was€caused€by€excessiveĻpressure€from€the€earth€and€ground€water€pushing€against€the€wall.€€Dr.ĻJones€testified€that€the€wall€had€buckled€about€four€inches€along€the€88Ļfoot„long€horizontal€crack,€and€that€repairs€were€absolutely€necessary.€ĻDr.€Jones€also€testified€that€the€88€foot„long€crack€had€beenĻremortared€in€the€past,€and€that€the€reopening€of€the€crack€in€1993Ļindicated€that€the€wall€had€been€continuously€moving€and€that€theĻproblem€was€worsening.× ƒ3 ××  ׀€€Ģą ąOn€December€7,€1994,€a€year€after€Dr.€Jones€inspected€the€house,ĻMr.€Edwards€contracted€with€Dr.€Jones€to€begin€making€repairs€to€theĻbasement.€€€While€Dr.€Jones€was€working€on€the€east€wall€of€theĻbasement,€a€portion€of€the€wall€collapsed.€€The€total€cost€of€rebuildingĻand€waterproofing€the€east€and€north€€basement€walls€was€$20,350.00.€ĻMr.€Edwards€testified€that€although€he€had€not€had€the€house€appraised,Ķhe€estimated€that€the€diminution€in€value€of€the€house€wasĻapproximately€$20,000.00,€therefore,€the€house€was€only€worthĻapproximately€$149,900.00€€Ģą ąThe€Edwardses€filed€this€suit€against€the€Bruces€on€March€31,Ļ1994,€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Sumner€County.€€A€non„jury€trial€wasĻheld€on€June€1„2,€1995,€and€by€order€entered€June€12,€1995,€theĻchancellor€ruled€in€favor€of€the€Edwardses€and€awarded€themĻ$40,000.00€in€damages.€€In€his€memorandum€opinion,€the€chancellorĻconcluded:ĢÓÓĢą8 ąą8 ąThere€is€conflicting€testimony€in€this€case€butĻnot€between€the€agents.€€It€is€clear€to€the€CourtĻthat€Mary€Mingle€and€Nancy€Jo€Martin€areĻcredible.€€Each€has€been€called€to€testify€as€toĻwhat€each€individually€said€and€to€relate€whatĻshe€heard€the€parties€or€other€agent€say.€€BothĻwere€asked€questions€to€which€the€answer€wasĻš šI€donššt€recall.šš€€Failure€of€a€recollection€is€aĻcommon€experience;€innocent€misrecollection€isĻnot€uncommon.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąThe€Edwards€were€satisfied€with€their€agentššsĻexplanation€on€the€water,€but€wanted€to€meetĻthe€owners€and€discuss€basement€water€andĻother€matters.€€Arrangements€were€madeĻbetween€the€agents€for€the€parties€to€meet€onĻthe€evening€on€the€6th€day€of€October,€1993.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąMary€Mingle€took€the€Edwards€by€the€office€ofĻNancy€Jo€Martin€on€the€afternoon€of€October€6.€ĶWhile€there€a€copy€of€handwritten€notes€of€theĻlisting€agent€was€made€for€Mary€Mingle€and€theĻEdwards.€€In€the€handwritten€notes€was€theĻstatement€š šbasement€leakage€has€beenĻdefinitely€controlledšš€(See€Exhibit€2).ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąWhen€the€parties€met,€Mr.€Edwards€and€Mr.€BruceĻdiscussed€water€in€the€basement.€€Mr.€Bruce€toldĻMr.€Edwards€that€water€did€come€into€the€roomĻunderneath€the€front€porch€(west€wall).€€Mr.ĻBruce€never€told€Mr.€Edwards€that€water€leakedĻin€along€the€east€wall.€€Mr.€Edwards€related€toĻMr.€Bruce€that€in€Huntsville€he€œhad€had›€a€houseĻwith€a€problem€of€leakage€in€the€basement€in€aĻroom€under€the€porch€and€of€work€done€toĻcorrect€the€problem.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąDuring€the€course€of€conversation,€Mr.€Bruce€toldĻMr.€Edwards,€š šif€you€donššt€want€it€to€get€wet,Ļdonššt€put€it€down€there.šš€€This€statement€wasĻmade€when€they€were€discussing€the€waterĻcoming€into€the€room€underneath€the€front€porchĻand€Mr.€Edwards€took€the€statement€to€mean,Ļdonššt€put€anything€that€you€donššt€want€to€get€wetĻin€the€room€under€the€front€porch.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąOn€the€evening€of€October€6,€1993,€the€EdwardsĻmade€an€offer€and€the€Bruces€accepted.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąOn€the€30th€day€of€November,€1993,€the€partiesĻmet€at€closing.€€Because€of€a€heavy€rain€inĻNovember,€1993€in€Huntsville,€Mr.€EdwardsĻinquired€if€it€had€rained€in€Gallatin.€€He€wasĻinformed€that€there€had€been€a€heavy€rain€and€heĻasked€if€there€had€been€any€problems€with€waterĻleakage€in€the€basement.€€Mr.€Bruce€told€himĻthere€were€not€any.€€The€plaintiffs€became€theĻowners€of€improved€real€property€known€as€231ĶGraystone€Drive,€Gallatin,€Sumner€County,ĻTennessee.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąOn€the€3rd€day€of€December,€1993,€there€was€aĻrain€in€the€Gallatin€community€and€waterĻentered€the€basement€at€231€Graystone€Drive€byĻleaking€through€the€blocks€along€the€east€wall.€ĻWater€also€came€into€the€basement€on€the€westĻside.€€Mr.€Edwards€informed€Mr.€Bruce€about€theĻwater€leakage,€and€Mr.€Bruce€expressed€surprise.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąImmediately€following€discovery€of€the€waterĻleakage€problems,€plaintiffs€called€someĻcompanies€to€give€estimates€on€repair€andĻcorrection€of€the€problem.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąDr.€Ron€Jones,€licensed€professional€civilĻengineer€with€GEC,€Inc.,€inspected€231€GraystoneĻDrive€on€or€about€the€7th€day€of€December,€1993.€ĻHe€gave€Mr.€Edwards€an€oral€report€and€followedĻup€with€a€letter€dated€December€28,€1993€(seeĻExhibit€33).€€Dr.€Jones€found€the€rear€(east)€wallĻstructurally€unsafe€due€to€š šexcessive€lateralĻearth€and€ground€water€pressures,šš€and€he€foundĻthat€a€lot€of€water€was€seeping€through€theĻlower€third€of€the€wall.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąPlaintiff€Edwards€had€on€his€inspection€of€theĻproperty€noticed€a€horizontal€crack€in€the€eastĻbasement€wall.€€He€had€asked€Mr.€Bruce€about€theĻcrack€and€the€statement€from€Mr.€Bruce€was€thatĻit€had€been€there€since€day€one€and€had€neverĻbeen€a€problem.€€Mr.€Edwards€had€not€noticedĻvertical€cracks€and€one€vertical€crack€ofĻsignificance€had€been€covered€by€Mr.€Bruce€withĻthe€placement€of€particle€board€at€the€end€ofĻshelving.€€According€to€Mr.€Bruce€the€board€wasĻplaced€there€to€protect€items€on€the€shelf€fromĶmildew€due€to€the€wetness€of€the€wall€and€notĻto€conceal€the€vertical€jagged€crack.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąMr.€Bruce€was€informed€in€December,€1993,€byĻMr.€Edwards€of€what€Dr.€Jones€had€said.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąWith€rain€on€December€10,€1993,€there€wereĻbasement€water€leakage€problems.€€On€FebruaryĻ10,€1994,€and€February€22,€1994,€there€wasĻbasement€water€leakage.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąOn€the€28th€day€of€November,€1994,€there€was€aĻheavy€rain€in€Gallatin.€€Mr.€Edwards€went€andĻbought€four€(4)€house€jacks€to€put€in€theĻbasement€under€the€east€wall.€€The€next€day€hisĻwife€called€Dr.€Ron€Jones€to€do€the€repair€workĻto€the€house.€€GEC,€Inc.,€started€to€work€on€theĻ7th€day€of€December,€1994,€and€while€at€work,Ļthe€east€wall€collapsed.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąThe€Court€finds€that€the€east€wall€collapsedĻbecause€the€concrete€blocks€sheared€in€half€dueĻto€more€than€fifteen€(15)€years€of€uncorrectedĻwater€leakage.€€The€workman€did€not€cause€theĻwall€to€fall€at€the€time€it€fell.ĢĢą ąą ąą ąą ą*ą ąą ą*ą ąą ą*ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąThe€Court€finds€that€the€Bruces€did€not€knowĻthat€the€east€wall€at€231€Graystone€wasĻstructurally€unsafe.€€They€knew€that€water€hadĻseeped€through€the€blocks€since€the€purchase€ofĻthe€house,€but€there€was€not€evidence€that€theyĻhad€ever€been€told€that€the€structural€integrityĻof€that€wall€was€at€risk.ĢĢą ąą ąą ąą ą*ą ąą ą*ą ąą ą*ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąTo€prevail€under€the€Tennessee€ConsumerĻProtection€Act,€plaintiffs€would€have€to€proveĻby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatĻdefendants€intentionally€concealed€from€themĻthe€fact€that€the€east€wall€had€sufferedĻextensive€structural€damage€due€to€the€waterĻleakage€through€the€blocks.€€Plaintiffs€have€notĻcarried€this€burden€of€proof.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąAs€to€negligent€misrepresentation,€the€CourtĻfinds€that€plaintiffs€have€proven€by€aĻpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€water€leakedĻthrough€the€lower€third€of€the€east€wall;€thatĻdefendants€knew€of€this€problem;€thatĻdefendants€had€a€duty€to€disclose€the€waterĻleakage€problems€when€they€were€asked€and€theyĻdid€not€make€a€full€disclosure.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąDefendants€make€[sic]€a€representation€that€theĻbasement€leakage€had€been€controlled.€€ThisĻstatement€was€not€correct.€€Leakage€was€notĻcontrolled.€€Removing€the€water€from€theĻbasement€was€controlled€by€the€drain€pipeĻdefendants€installed.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąDefendants€did€not€inform€plaintiff€the€eastĻwall€leaked.€€Defendants€related€water€leakageĻfrom€the€west€wall€in€the€room€under€the€frontĻporch.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąRepresentations€about€leakage€under€control€andĻemphasis€on€the€west€wall€were€made€withĻintent€to€induce€plaintiffs€to€rely€upon€it.ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąPlaintiffs€were€unaware€of€the€water€leakageĻthrough€the€east€wall,€and€they€relied€upon€theĻrepresentation€of€defendants.ĢÓÓĢThe€chancellor€concluded€that€the€Bruces€were€guilty€of€negligentĻmisrepresentation,€denied€the€defendants'€motion€to€dismiss€JoanneĻBruce€as€a€party€defendant,€and€awarded€the€plaintiffs€$40,000.00€inĻdamages.€€€Ģą ąThe€defendants„appellants€appealed€and€present€four€issues€forĻour€review.€€As€stated€in€their€brief€those€issues€are:ĢÓÓą8 ąą8 ą1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€theĻBruces€guilty€of€negligent€representation?ĢĢą8 ąą8 ą2.€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toĻapply€comparative€negligence€to€the€case?Ģą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ą3.€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toĻapply€express€assumption€of€the€risk€to€theĻcase?ĢĢą8 ąą8 ą4.€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€the€awardingĻof€damages?ÓÓĢThe€appellees€also€present€three€issues€for€our€review.€€As€stated€inĻtheir€brief€those€issues€are:ĢÓÓą8 ąą8 ą1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€to€find€theĻDefendantsšš€conduct€amounted€to€fraudulentĻmisrepresentation,€rather€than€negligentĻmisrepresentation?ĢĢą8 ąą8 ą2.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€to€find€thatĻthe€Defendants€conduct€violated€the€TennesseeĻConsumer€Protection€Act?ĢĢą8 ąą8 ą3.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€failing€to€awardĶtriple€damages€and€attorney€fees€pursuant€to€theĻTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act?Ģą ąą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ą(I)€As€to€attorney€fees€for€negligentĻmisrepresentation?Ģą ąą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ą(ii)€As€to€triple€damages€for€fraudulentĻmisrepresentation?ĢÓÓą ąĢą ąWe€will€first€address€the€appellantsšš€and€appelleesšš€issuesĻregarding€fraudulent€and€negligent€misrepresentation.€Our€review€of€theĻrecord€is€ņņņ ņde€novoó óóó€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€factualĻfindings€of€the€trial€court.€T.R.A.P.€13(d).Ģą ąThe€defendants€argue€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€preponderatesĻagainst€the€trial€courtššs€finding€that€they€negligently€misrepresentedĻthe€condition€of€the€basement€prior€to€the€sale€of€the€home.€€There€wasĻa€sharp€dispute€in€the€testimony€in€this€case€as€to€whether€Mr.€BruceĻtold€the€Edwardses€that€the€entire€basement€leaked€or€whether€he€toldĻthe€Edwardses€that€only€a€portion€of€the€basement€under€the€front€porchĻleaked.€€Mr.€Edwards€testified€that€Mr.€Bruce€specifically€stated€thatĻonly€the€area€under€the€front€porch€leaked.€€Mr.€Bruce,€Ms.€Bruce,€and€Ms.ĻMartin,€on€the€other€hand,€all€testified€that€Mr.€Bruce€told€Mr.€EdwardsĻthat€the€entire€basement€leaked.€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€thatĻthe€Bruces€misrepresented€the€condition€of€the€basement€with€theĶintent€of€inducing€the€Edwardses€to€rely€upon€the€misrepresentation.€ĻThus,€the€chancellor€implicitly€found€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Edwards€toĻbe€more€credible€than€that€of€the€defendants€and€their€witness,€and€heĻobviously€weighted€the€testimony€accordingly.€€When€the€resolution€ofĻthe€issues€in€a€case€depends€upon€the€truthfulness€of€witnesses,€theĻtrial€judge€who€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses€in€theirĻmanner€and€demeanor€while€testifying€is€in€a€far€better€position€thanĻthis€Court€to€decide€those€issues.€€ņņņ ņMays€v.€Brighton€Bankó óóó,€832€S.W.2dĻ347,€351„52€(Tenn.App.€1992).€€The€weight,€faith,€and€credit€to€be€givenĻto€any€witnessššs€testimony€lies€in€the€first€instance€with€the€trier€ofĻfact,€and€the€credibility€accorded€will€be€given€great€weight€by€theĻappellate€court.€€ņņņ ņIdó óóó.€At€352;€ņņņ ņTown€of€Alamo€v.€Forcum„„James€Coó óóó.,Ļ327€S.W.2d€47,€49€(Tenn.€1959).€€Although€the€defendants€presentedĻevidence€contrary€to€that€presented€by€the€plaintiffs,€the€evidenceĻpresented€by€the€defendants€does€not€preponderate€against€theĻchancellorššs€findings€of€fact.€€€€€Ģą ąThe€plaintiffs€argue€that€the€defendants€are€liable€for€fraudulentĻmisrepresentation€rather€than€negligent€misrepresentation,€becauseĻthe€chancellor€found€that€the€defendants€intentionally€concealed€theĻextent€of€the€water€problem€from€the€plaintiffs.€€We€agree.€€In€order€toĶrecover€for€fraudulent€misrepresentation,€a€plaintiff€must€prove€theĻfollowing€elements:€(1)€the€defendant€made€a€representation€regardingĻa€present€or€past€fact;€(2)€the€representation€was€false;€(3)€theĻrepresentation€was€in€regard€to€a€material€fact;€(4)€the€falseĻrepresentation€was€made€either€knowingly€or€recklessly;€(5)€theĻplaintiff€actually€relied€on€the€misrepresentation€of€the€material€fact;Ļ(6)€such€reliance€was€reasonable€under€the€circumstances;€and€(7)€theĻplaintiff€suffered€damages€as€a€result€of€such€reliance.€€ņņņ ņMetropolitanĻGovššt€of€Nashville€v.€McKinneyó óóó,€852€S.W.2d€233,€237€(Tenn.€App.Ļ1992).€€Nondisclosure€of€a€material€fact€may€also€give€rise€to€a€claimĻfor€fraudulent€or€negligent€misrepresentation€when€the€defendant€has€aĻduty€to€disclose€and€the€matters€not€disclosed€are€material.€€ņņņ ņDobbs€v.ĻGuentheró óóó,€846€S.W.2d€270,€274€(Tenn.App.€1992).€€The€elements€of€theĻtort€of€negligent€misrepresentation€are€the€same€as€those€of€fraudulentĻmisrepresentation€with€one€exception;€the€element€of€knowledge€ofĻfalsity€or€reckless€disregard€for€the€truth€is€replaced€by€a€duty€ofĻreasonable€care€to€ascertain€the€truth€before€making€a€representation.Ļņņņ ņHaynes€v.€Cumberland€Buildersó óóó,€546€S.W.2d€220€(Tenn.App.€1976).€Ģą ąThe€chancellor€in€this€case€found€that€the€defendantsĻintentionally€misrepresented€the€extent€of€the€leaking€to€the€plaintiffsĶand€that€the€defendants€made€this€representation€with€the€intent€ofĻinducing€the€plaintiffs€to€rely€on€the€representation.€€Based€upon€theseĻfindings€of€fact,€the€defendants€should€have€been€found€liable€on€theĻbasis€of€fraudulent€misrepresentation€rather€than€negligentĻmisrepresentation.Ģą ąThe€defendants€argue€that€they€should€not€have€been€found€liableĻfor€either€fraudulent€or€negligent€misrepresentation,€because€theirĻrepresentations€regarding€the€basement€were€true.€€The€defendantsĻalternatively€argue€that€even€if€the€representations€were€false,€theĻEdwardses€reliance€on€those€representations€was€not€reasonable.€€TheĻdefendants€contend€that€the€statement€in€Ms.€Martinššs€real€estateĻfolder€that€the€š šbasement€leaking€has€been€definitely€controlledšš€wasĻnot€made€by€them;€rather,€the€statement€was€a€conclusion€drawn€by€Ms.ĻMartin€after€she€inspected€the€house€and€spoke€with€Mr.€Bruce€about€theĻdrainage€system€installed€in€the€basement.€€The€defendants€argue€thatĻeven€if€the€statement€could€be€attributed€to€them,€the€statement€wasĻtrue,€because€the€water€leakage€had€been€controlled€by€the€drainageĻsystem€installed€by€Mr.€Bruce.€€They€essentially€argue€that€the€wordĻš šcontrolledšš€does€not€mean€š šfixedšš€or€š šstoppedšš€it€means€š šexercisingĻdirection€over€or€to€prevent€the€spread€of€something€undesirable.šš€€Ģą ąThe€record€does€support€the€defendantsšš€contention€that€theĻnotation€in€the€real€estate€folder€was€a€š šconclusionšš€by€Ms.€Martin.€ĻHowever,€Ms.€Martin€did€not€make€this€š šconclusionšš€of€her€own€accord,Ļshe€made€this€conclusion€based€upon€her€conversations€with€Mr.€BruceĻregarding€the€drainage€system.€€The€record€indicates€that€Mr.€Bruce€toldĻMs.€Martin€that€the€basement€leakage€had€been€controlled.€€Although€theĻbasement€leakage€may€have€been€š šcontrolledšš€by€the€drainage€systemĻbecause€the€drainage€system€removed€at€least€some€of€the€water,€theĻstatement€was€still€misleading,€because€Mr.€Bruce€did€not€inform€Mr.ĻEdwards€that€the€entire€basement€leaked€or€that€any€water€would€poolĻin€the€basement€other€than€under€the€front€porch.€€The€record€indicatesĻthat€due€to€Mr.€Bruceššs€representations,€Mr.€Edwards€understoodĻš šcontrolledšš€to€mean€that€only€the€area€under€the€front€porch€leaked,Ļand€that€the€remainder€of€the€basement€remained€dry.€€This€was€aĻreasonable€conclusion,€because€according€to€Mr.€Edwards,€he€was€toldĻthat€only€the€area€under€the€front€porch€leaked.€€In€any€event,€theĻchancellor€did€not€premise€his€finding€of€liability€on€the€note€in€theĻreal€estate€folder,€he€premised€his€finding€of€liability€on€theĻrepresentations€which€Mr.€Bruce€made€directly€to€the€Edwardses.Ģą ąThe€defendants€also€argue€that€Mr.€Bruceššs€statements€to€Ms.ĶMartin€which€were€related€to€Ms.€Mingle€and€then€to€the€Edwardses,Ļwere€true.€€The€€defendants€argue€that€Ms.€Mingle€told€Ms.€Martin€thatĻwater€came€in€š šaround€the€basement,šš€thus,€through€the€use€of€the€wordĻš šaroundšš€the€Bruces€informed€the€Edwardses€that€the€entire€basementĻleaked.€€In€making€this€argument,€the€defendants€ignore€the€portions€ofĻthis€same€conversation€in€which€Ms.€Martin€stated€that€Mr.€Bruce€hadĻgone€to€š šgreat€expense€to€be€sure€that€it€[the€leaking]€would€neverĻhappen€again,šš€and€that€if€any€water€did€š šget€into€the€basement€it€willĻdrain€through€the€little€hole€in€the€basement.šš× ƒ4 ××  ׀€It€is€uncontrovertedĻthat€the€entire€basement€leaked€and€that€the€water€pooled€and€did€notĻdrain€through€Mr.€Bruceššs€drainage€system.€€Mr.€€Edwards€testified€thatĻMr.€Bruce€told€him€that€the€drain€holes€cut€into€the€basement€floor€wereĻinstalled€to€drain€any€overflow€from€the€area€under€the€front€porch.€ĻThus,€Mr.€Bruceššs€statements€to€Ms.€Martin€which€were€related€to€Ms.ĻMingle€and€the€Edwardses€were€false.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.Ģ€€€€€€€€The€defendants€also€argue€that€Mr.€Edwards€stated€š šlet€me€put€itĻto€you€like€this,€if€I€have€anything€I€didnššt€want€to€get€wet€I€would€notĻput€it€in€the€basement,šš€and€that€this€statement€was€in€regard€to€theĶentire€basement€and€was€thus€true.€€As€stated€above,€the€chancellorĻfound€this€statement€was€made€in€the€context€of€only€the€area€underĻthe€front€porch,€and€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€thisĻfinding.€Ģą ąThe€defendants€next€argue€that€the€Edwardses€reliance€on€Mr.ĻBruceššs€statements€was€unreasonable,€because€the€drainage€system,Ļditches€along€the€north€and€east€walls,€and€rotting€wood€were€in€plainĻview€and€clearly€visible.€€They€argue€that€under€these€circumstances,€itĻwas€unreasonable€for€the€Edwardses€to€rely€on€their€representationsĻthat€the€east€wall€did€not€leak.€€We€disagree.€€At€the€time€theĻEdwardses€inspected€the€property,€there€was€no€water€leaking€from€theĻeast€wall,€and€the€only€way€they€could€have€been€sure€that€the€wall€didĻnot€leak€during€or€following€a€heavy€rain€would€have€been€to€eitherĻinspect€the€wall€during€a€rain€or€hire€an€expert€to€inspect€the€basement.€ĻGiven€the€representations€made€by€the€Bruces,€we€do€not€think€it€wasĻnecessary€for€the€Edwardses€to€hire€an€expert€to€inspect€the€home.€€TheĻwater€leakage€problems€that€the€Edwardses€observed€at€the€home€wereĻconsistent€with€the€representations€that€the€Bruces€made€to€theĻEdwardses.€€The€Bruces€told€the€€Edwardses€that€there€had€been€waterĻleakage€problems€in€the€past,€but€that€these€problems€(with€theĶexception€of€the€area€under€the€front€porch)€had€been€corrected.€€ThereĻwas€no€water€in€the€basement€at€the€time€the€Edwardses€inspected€theĻhome,€thus,€the€Edwardses€reasonably€concluded€that€the€water€damageĻwhich€they€had€observed€was€from€past€leakage€and€had€been€corrected.€ĢŌ€Ōœ›ą ąThe€defendants€next€assert€that€the€judgment€in€this€case€againstĻMrs.€Bruce€should€be€reversed,€because€she€made€no€representationsĻregarding€the€basement.€€The€defendants€argue€that€if€anyĻmisrepresentations€were€made€regarding€the€basement,€thoseĻmisrepresentations€were€made€only€by€Mr.€Bruce,€not€Ms.€Bruce.€€€TheĻdefendants€contend€that€Mr.€Bruceššs€misrepresentations,€if€any,€cannotĻbe€imputed€to€Ms.€Bruce,€therefore,€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€aĻjudgment€against€Ms.€Bruce.€€We€disagree.Ģą ąWhile€the€record€does€support€the€defendantsšš€contention€that€Ms.ĻBruce€made€no€representations€regarding€the€water€leakage,€the€recordĻalso€indicates€that€Ms.€Bruce€knew€or€should€have€known€of€the€waterĻleakage€problem,€and€that€she€did€not€disclose€the€problem€to€theĻEdwardses€when€she€knew€that€her€husband€was€misrepresenting€theĻcondition€of€the€basement€to€the€Edwardses.€€Although€Ms.€Bruce€neverĻspoke€with€the€Edwardses€regarding€the€basement,€she€was€presentĻduring€all€conversations€between€Mr.€Bruce€and€the€Edwardses.€€Ms.ĶBruce€knew€or€should€have€known€that€her€husband€was€misrepresentingĻthe€condition€of€the€basement,€yet€she€remained€silent.€€Ms.€BruceĻmisrepresented€the€condition€of€the€basement€by€her€silence,€and€sheĻretained€the€benefits€of€the€misrepresentation.× ƒ5 ××  ׀€Under€theseĻcircumstances€the€trial€court€properly€entered€a€judgment€against€Ms.ĻBruce.€€ņ ņņņSeeóóó ó€ņņņ ņDodson€v.€Andersonó óóó,€710€S.W.2d€510,€512€(Tenn.€1986)(AĻspouse€may€.€.€.€ratify€the€fraudulent€act€of€the€other€so€as€to€becomeĻliable€for€the€fraud€itself€by€accepting€or€retaining€the€benefits€of€theĻact€knowing€it€was€tainted€with€fraud.€[citations€omitted]).Ō€ŌĢą ąThe€defendants€next€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toĻapply€comparative€negligence€to€this€case.€€They€argue€that€the€fault€ofĻthe€Bruces€in€making€the€representations€should€have€been€reduced€byĻthe€fault€of€the€Edwardses€in€negligently€relying€upon€theĻrepresentations.€€The€defendants€are€essentially€arguing€that€the€faultĻattributable€to€an€intentional€tortfeasor€should€be€reduced€by€the€faultĻattributable€to€a€negligent€tortfeasor.€€We€do€not€agree.Ģą ąIn€ņņņ ņTurner€v.€Jordanó óóó,€No.€01„A„01„9411„CV„00544,€1995€LexisĻ576€(Tenn.€App.€M.S.€August€30,€1995)€this€Court€allowed€a€negligentĶtortfeasor€to€reduce€his€liability€by€the€percentage€of€faultĻattributable€to€an€intentional€tortfeasor.€€However,€this€Court€statedĻthat€an€intentional€tortfeasor€should€not€be€allowed€to€reduce€his€orĻher€liability€by€the€percentage€of€fault€attributable€to€a€negligentĻtortfeasor.€€This€Court€stated:ĢÓÓą ąą8 ąą8 ąPlaintiffs€interpret€the€comparisonĻrule€to€allow€intentional€tortfeasorsĻto€use€the€conduct€of€negligentĻtortfeasors€to€reduce€their€liability.ĻSuch€an€interpretation€does€not€seemĻwell€founded.€€The€present€caseĻconcerns€an€injured€party€attemptingĻto€transfer€an€intentionalĻtortfeasorššs€responsibility€to€aĻnegligent€tortfeasor,€not€anĻintentional€tortfeasor€attempting€toĻtransfer€some€of€his€ownĻresponsibility€to€a€negligentĻtortfeasor.€.€.€.€€As€noted€byĻplaintiffs,€intentional€tortfeasors€inĻTennessee€have€always€been€heldĻfully€responsible€for€the€injuriesĻthey€cause.€€The€contributoryĻnegligence€of€a€plaintiff€has€neverĻbeen€a€defense€to€an€intentionalĻassault€in€Tennessee.€€ņņņ ņSee€State€v.ĻDunnó óóó,€282€S.W.2d€203,€213Ļ(Tenn.App.€1943).€€Consequently,€theĻcomparison€approach€stands€for€theĻproposition€that€a€negligentĻtortfeasor€may€reduce€his€liabilityĻby€comparing€his€fault€to€that€of€anĻintentional€tortfeasor,€not€that€anĶintentional€tortfeasor€may€reduceĻhis€liability€by€comparing€his€faultĻto€that€of€a€negligent€tortfeasor.ĢÓÓĢņņņ ņId.ó óóó€at€*9.€Since€we€have€determined€that€the€Bruces€are€guilty€ofĻfraudulent€misrepresentation€rather€than€negligent€misrepresentation,Ļthe€Bruces€may€not€reduce€their€liability€for€the€Edwardses€damages€byĻthe€percentage€of€fault€attributable€to€the€Edwardses€in€relying€uponĻthe€representations.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ģą ąThe€defendantsšš€next€issue€for€our€review€is€š šwhether€the€trialĻcourt€erred€in€failing€to€apply€express€assumption€of€the€risk€to€theĻcase?šš€€The€defendants€argue€that€the€plaintiffs€are€barred€fromĻrecovering€for€any€damage€caused€by€the€water€leakage,€because€theĻdefendants€signed€the€Contract€For€Sale€of€Real€Estate€which€expresslyĻstated,€š šBuyer€has€not€relied€on€any€representations€or€warranties€asĻto€the€condition€of€the€premises€except€as€herein€stated€and€closingĻshall€constitute€a€full€acceptance€of€the€condition€of€the€premises.šš€ĻThe€defendants€also€rely€on€the€š šBuyer€Representationsšš€provision€ofĻthe€contract€which€provides,€š šthe€Buyer€is€satisfied€with€price,Ļquality,€size,€etc.€of€the€property€under€this€contract€.€.€.€.šš€€TheĻcontract€further€provides:€ĢÓÓą8 ąą8 ąORAL€REPRESENTATIONS€AND/OR€AGREEMENTS:€ItĻis€expressly€agreed€and€understood€that€thisĻinstrument€contains€the€entire€agreementĻbetween€the€parties€and€the€Agent(s),€and€thatĻthere€are€no€collateral€conditions,€agreements,Ļor€representations,€all€such€having€beenĻincorporated€and€resolved€into€this€Agreement.€ĻThe€Buyer€and€the€Seller€agree€that€noĻstatements€or€representations€have€been€madeĻby€the€real€estate€agent(s)€regarding€the€realĻestate,€nor€has€any€tax€advice€been€provided,Ļwhich€is€not€reduced€to€writing€and€includedĻwithin€this€Agreement.€€No€variations€orĻalterations€to€the€terms€of€this€Agreement€shallĻbe€binding€upon€the€parties€unless€the€same€beĻreduced€to€writing€and€executed€by€the€parties.ššĢÓÓą ą€Ģą ąThe€defendants€argue€that€because€Mr.€Edwards€read,€understood,Ļand€signed€the€sales€contract,€the€plaintiffs€expressly€assumed€the€riskĻof€water€leaking€in€the€basement.€€€Ģą ąThe€trial€court€specifically€found€that€the€Edwardses€wereĻunaware€that€the€east€wall€of€the€basement€leaked,€and€that€they€reliedĻupon€the€representations€of€the€Bruces€when€they€purchased€theĻproperty€in€question.€The€Bruces€represented€that€with€the€exception€ofĻthe€area€under€the€front€porch,€the€basement€did€not€leak.€€ThisĻrepresentation€was€fraudulent.€€€A€contractual€disclaimer€will€notĻserve€as€a€shield€to€liability€for€fraud.€ņņņ ņFirst€Natššl€Bank€ofĻLouisville€v.€Brooks€Farmsó óóó,€821€S.W.2d€925,€928€(Tenn.€1991);Ķņņņ ņHoughland€v.€Security€Alarms€&€Services,€Incó óóó.,€755€S.W.2d€769,Ļ773€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€Bruces€cannot€rely€upon€the€disclaimer€toĻabsolve€them€from€liability€for€fraudulent€misrepresentation.€€ThisĻissue€is€without€merit.Ģą ąWe€next€address€the€defendantsšš€issue€regarding€the€damageĻaward.€€They€assert€that€the€chancellor€erred€in€awarding€theĻEdwardses€both€the€reasonable€cost€of€repairing€the€property,€and€theĻdiminution€in€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property.€€The€defendantsĻcontend€that€since€Mr.€Edwards€testified€that€the€diminution€in€theĻpropertyššs€value€as€a€result€of€the€leaking€was€$20,000,€and€the€cost€ofĻrepairing€the€property€was€$20,350.00,€the€proper€measure€of€damagesĻwas€$20,350.00.€€The€defendants€argue€that€the€Edwardses€were€notĻentitled€to€recover€both€the€cost€of€repairing€the€basement€and€theĻdiminution€in€the€houseššs€value€because€of€the€leaking.Ģą ąThe€plaintiffs,€on€the€other€hand,€contend€that€the€cost€ofĻrepairing€the€house€will€not€adequately€compensate€them,€and€that€theyĻare,€therefore,€entitled€to€recover€the€diminution€in€the€houseššs€value.€ĻMr.€Edwards€testified€that€although€he€paid€$169,900.00€for€theĻproperty,€its€value€at€the€time€of€trial,€after€repairs€were€made,€wasĻ$149,900.00.€€He€argues€that€this€lower€value€is€a€result€of€having€toĶdisclose€the€leaking€problem€to€any€potential€purchaser.Ģą ąThe€general€rule€for€the€measure€of€damages€for€injuries€to€realĻestate€is€the€difference€between€the€reasonable€market€value€of€theĻpremises€immediately€prior€to€and€immediately€after€the€injury;€but€ifĻthe€reasonable€cost€of€repairing€the€injury€is€less€than€the€depreciationĻin€value,€the€cost€of€repair€is€a€lawful€measure€of€damages.€€ņņņ ņWilliamsĻv.€Southern€Railwayó óóó,€55€Tenn.€App.€18,€396€S.W.2d€98€(1965).€€InĻarriving€at€the€difference€in€value€immediately€before€and€after€theĻinjury€to€the€premises,€the€trier€of€fact€can€take€into€consideration€theĻcost€of€restoring€the€property€to€its€former€condition.€€ņņņ ņMcKinnon€v.ĻMichaudó óóó,€37€Tenn.€App.€148,€260€S.W.2d€721€(1953).€€Ģą ąThe€basic€rule€prescribing€the€measure€of€damages€forĻmisrepresentation€is€the€benefit€of€the€bargain€rule€which€compensatesĻthe€injured€party€for€the€actual€injuries€sustained€by€placing€him€or€herĻin€the€same€position€that€he€or€she€would€have€occupied€had€theĻmisrepresentation€not€occurred.€€ņņņ ņYoungblood€v.€Walló óóó,€815€S.W.2d€512,Ļ518€(Tenn.€1991).€€This€measure€of€damages€allows€the€plaintiff€toĻrecover€the€difference€between€the€actual€value€of€the€propertyĻreceived€at€the€time€of€the€making€of€the€contract€and€the€value€thatĻthe€property€would€have€possessed€if€the€representations€had€been€true.Ķņņņ ņHaynes€v.€Cumberland€Builders,€Incó óóó.,€546€S.W.2d€228,€233Ļ(Tenn.App.€1977).€€€In€a€fraudulent€misrepresentation€case€theĻplaintiffs€can€also€recover€for€any€other€pecuniary€losses€proximatelyĻcaused€by€the€misrepresentation.€€ņņņ ņIdó óóó.€Ģą ąIt€is€clear€that€the€Edwardses€suffered€$20,350.00€in€damages€asĻa€result€of€repairing€the€east€wall,€thus,€the€trial€court€properlyĻawarded€this€sum€as€damages.€€The€repairs€made€to€the€house€gave€theĻEdwardses€the€benefit€of€their€bargain:€€a€basement€with€a€dry,€eastĻwall.€€Any€diminution€in€the€propertyššs€value€associated€with€leaks€thatĻwere€concealed€at€the€time€the€contract€was€executed€has€beenĻcorrected.€€Accordingly,€the€damage€award€should€be€reduced€by€theĻ$20,000.00€awarded€for€diminution€in€value.€€Ģą ąThe€defendants€also€contend€that€the€plaintiffs€did€not€mitigateĻtheir€damages€when€they€discovered€that€the€east€wall€was€in€š šactiveĻfailure.šš€€The€defendants€assert€that€if€the€plaintiffs€had€begun€repairsĻon€the€east€wall€at€the€time€they€discovered€the€wall€was€shiftingĻrather€than€a€year€later,€the€east€wall€would€not€have€collapsed,€andĻthe€cost€of€repairing€the€basement€would€have€been€$900.00€less.€€TheyĻrely€on€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Jones€who€testified€that€when€he€originallyĻinspected€the€Edwardses'€home,€he€recommended€that€repairs€be€madeĶto€the€east€wall€š šas€soon€as€possible.šš€€Dr.€Jones€testified€that€š šasĻsoon€as€possiblešš€did€not€mean€a€year€later,€and€that€during€the€yearĻbetween€his€recommendation€of€repair€and€commencement€of€work,€theĻwall€shifted€an€extra€two€inches.€€Dr.€Jonesššs€testimony€indicates€thatĻthe€extra€two€inch€shift€contributed€to€the€wall€falling€which€in€turnĻincreased€the€cost€of€repair€by€$900.00.€€Because€the€repair€costs€wereĻincreased€by€$900.00€due€to€the€Edwardses€commencement€of€theĻrepairs€a€year€after€they€knew€repairs€were€necessary,€the€EdwardsesĻfailed€to€mitigate€their€damages.€€Accordingly,€we€further€reduce€theĻdamage€award€to€the€Edwardses€by€$900.00.€€€€€€€€€Ģ€€€€€ą ąThe€last€issue€for€our€review€is€presented€by€the€plaintiffs.€€TheĻplaintiffs€argue€that€the€chancellor€erred€by€refusing€to€award€attorneyĻfees€and€treble€damages€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€ConsumerĻProtection€Act,€T.C.A.€šš€47„18„101€(1995),€ņņņ ņet€seqó óóó.€€T.C.A.€šš€47„18„109Ļ(1995)€provides€in€pertinent€part:ĢÓÓą8 ąą8 ą(a)(1)€Any€person€who€suffers€an€ascertainableĻloss€of€money€or€property,€real,€personal,€orĻmixed,€or€any€article,€commodity,€or€thing€ofĻvalue€wherever€situated,€as€a€result€of€the€useĻor€employment€by€another€person€of€an€unfair€orĻdeceptive€act€or€practice€declared€to€beĻunlawful€by€this€part,€may€bring€an€actionĻindividually€to€recover€actual€damages.€€Ģą8 ąą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ą*€*€*ĢÓÓą8 ąą8 ąÓÓ(3)€If€the€court€finds€that€the€use€or€employmentĻof€the€unfair€or€deceptive€act€or€practice€was€aĻwillful€or€knowing€violation€of€this€part,€theĻcourt€may€award€three€(3)€times€the€actualĻdamages€sustained€and€may€provide€such€otherĻrelief€as€it€considers€necessary€and€proper.ĢÓÓĢÓÓą8 ąą8 ą(4)€In€determining€whether€treble€damagesĻshould€be€awarded,€the€trial€court€may€consider,Ļamong€other€things:Ģą8 ąą8 ąą ą(A)€The€competence€of€the€consumer€orĻother€person;Ģą8 ąą8 ąą ą(B)€The€nature€of€the€deception€or€coercionĻpracticed€upon€the€consumer€or€other€person;Ģą8 ąą8 ąą ą(C)€The€damage€to€the€consumer€or€otherĻperson;€andĢą8 ąą8 ąą ą(D)€The€good€faith€of€the€person€found€toĻhave€violated€the€provisions€of€this€part.ĢĢą8 ąĢą8 ąą8 ą(e)(1)€Upon€a€finding€by€the€court€that€aĻprovision€of€this€part€has€been€violated,€theĻcourt€may€award€to€the€person€bringing€suchĻaction€reasonable€attorneyššs€fees€and€costs.ĢĢĢIn€his€memorandum€opinion,€the€chancellor€concluded:ĢĢą8 ąą8 ąTo€prevail€under€the€Tennessee€ConsumerĻProtection€Act,€plaintiffs€would€have€to€proveĻby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatĻdefendants€intentionally€concealed€from€themĻthe€fact€that€the€east€wall€had€sufferedĻextensive€structural€damage€due€to€the€waterĻleakage€through€the€blocks.€€Plaintiffs€have€notĻcarried€this€burden€of€proof.ĢĢÓÓą ąThe€plaintiffs€assert€that€the€chancellor€erred€by€failing€toĻconsider€the€misrepresentations€regarding€the€water€leakage€as€aĻviolation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€The€plaintiffsĻargue€that€the€Brucesšš€misrepresentations€regarding€the€water€leakageĻconstituted€a€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€and,Ļtherefore,€the€plaintiffsšš€actual€damages€should€have€been€trebled.€€InĻsupport€of€this€argument,€the€plaintiffs€cite€ņņņ ņKlotz€v.€Underwoodó óóó,€563ĻF.Supp.€335€(E.D.€Tenn.€1982),€in€which€the€court€found€that€theĻConsumer€Protection€Act€applies€to€sales€of€real€estate€betweenĻindividuals€who€are€not€normally€engaged€in€the€business€of€selling€realĻestate.€€We€find€the€reasoning€of€ņņņ ņKlotzó óóó€persuasive€and€agree€that€theĻTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€applies€to€sales€of€realty€betweenĻindividuals€not€normally€engaged€in€the€real€estate€business.€€We€agreeĻwith€the€plaintiffs€that€the€defendants€knowingly€and€willfullyĻdeceived€them,€and€such€deception€constitutes€a€violation€of€theĻConsumer€Protection€Act.€€The€trial€courtššs€order€does€not€discuss€theĻConsumer€Protection€Act€in€the€context€of€the€misrepresentationsĻregarding€the€water€leakage.€€Accordingly,€we€remand€the€case€to€theĻtrial€court€for€a€determination€of€the€propriety€of€awarding€trebleĶdamages€and/or€attorney€fees€based€on€these€misrepresentations.€€TheĻdecision€whether€to€award€such€damages€and€fees€is€in€the€discretionĻof€the€trial€court.€€ą ąThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€modified€toĻaward€plaintiffs€$19,450.00,€and€the€judgment€is€affirmed€as€modified.€ĻThe€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedingsĻconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€againstĻthe€œappellants.ĢÓÓŌ€Ōą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą_________________________________Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąņ ņW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óĢĢ_________________________________Ģņ ņALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óĢĢ_________________________________Ģņ ņHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óĢŌ€Ō