WPC pg A .+\7t¬C_ a fkVł[E3m()&گMV}~EC^5m20؝I`jloPEU zy|*|Z8 ^F5"v{`MLKQx ,WX?u7o+M/S]4Q8 ܼqV~r4'9!zዯ0[X0 )# x.Vmcoh7 >Q[նj7Kϒ͋Hݰ (T(ffT-8a?7}"+'gGfYx&U)'n86O v,>#[at!6u<_ $pi×a#.r|d+Vz~|RM''Ӛ)$JF/~a7! VݡBx3~*J!wbp`U N@ % 0(Jw@4F 0zZ@L 0d 0P= 0R om UNL UN 0L 0D< 0XU:  0X AQs 0D 0D D/ BA B^ D3{{{{{{{{{{{  A 55 = E MM  U  _  i  s  }   D? BG(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($c:\office\wpwin\template\opinion.wpt 'P(e)*+,D-D.U/Ӏ9~-&d((*2n$ !        0  3|x9  Q+ d  q6 ;+'h 0  ` { gEx@8[ xx@8qC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\GRAPHICS\DRAFT.WPG(Wf|$ @*  A ((3Q$ !   d (W$    WPCD%&1D%&1''3XXXX,,51.+3 `! ''i((S)c))"G*"G*))|)|)|)-). )(k(<(y'&[%{%U %<I%&|&''j'\'3'3'T'T''13N `"0(0(''r&%%+&\O&=&9&6'b{''<](x(0(0(13 `#T#+T#+T#+'H+'H+'H+t+t+O+O+O+-++*\*U`*\ *\ *B$*B$**<*I*n*n***e)e)e))))Q)5)4)g((:(:(R(R(R((()))))*=*****I+I+ `$ c, c, h, i, u, ^, H, ;, $,s ,^ ,I ,0 , D, D, , ,H -H -H -1 -$--,-,Y,l+6+++*5*5*?*?*Te++ ,/k,,a,F,,+5O++*[*|)))) J*p * + x+ k+; ~+ + + , c, c,13N `%e +e + + + \+t #+M * *[*r?*Cl**)*+++ &, &,13J `& 50 50 0 / /U // F/! . . G.\ .\ .v -v -B -1 -w-w- e- e- e- N- N- N-k -k -k - - - k- k- k-\ - , [, [,R ,R , - - - - -} .} .( e.( e.( e.v .v .v . $/ $/ $/ 5/ 5/ L/ L/ L/h .P . . . . .` .k 8/ / / / / /( /( / / / / 0 0 50 50 `'/// / / / k/ J/t +/O /1 / . . / ,/ U/j u/j u/ 0 0 a0> 0 0 0 1 1z 1z 1z 1 0 0 50q h0` }0, 0 c0 F0 / / / / s/ c/ +/ +/ / / / / / ;/ O/< |/< |/ . .P m.P m.P m. .. W.{ . #/ U///(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regulara1(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(WV $   (3$ !  (_7$0   8  "  Xt XXX4  XXt   Ad FILEDXt X 4  January21,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial RegularH(_$0    8!"$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxda2"y  <<= 8fCa4a6a7a8a10a11a12a13a14a15____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d d !  ((((TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7_XXdXXd7  wXX'XDXX'%  %  Ӝ999//r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r9//FLIGHTLESSNBIRDFARM,INC.,%8 D )    0      D ) Plaintiff/% 4 Appellee, D (('  '%4)(( @   AppealNo. ,   0      D )   @ % : 01A019803CV00126%: B 9t )>.*jxH` `@E< ` 8ttxPt tߛ9v.  0      D )  X   0      D )   @ % ; CheathamCircuit%;  n % 8 JOSEPHK.DUGHMAN,%8J D )   @ No.% ? 4775%? 4    0      D ) Defendant/Appellant, D ) `    0      D )v.  0      D )     0      D )WFLIGHTLESSNBIRDFARM,INC., D )   JAMESL.NEWELL,JAMESA. D )   NEWELL,CAROLYNNEWELL, D ) 4 andDEBBIENEWELL,   D ) J   0      D ) CounterDefendants/ D ) &v М- - Appellees.     D )   @  < @  COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEAPPEALFROMTHE% < CHEATHAM%< ԀCOUNTY% > CIRCUIT%> ԀCOURTAT% @ ASHLAND%@ CITY,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLE% A ROBERTE.BURCH%AB ,% B JUDGE%Bq   GARYM.EISENBERG2417BellStreetP.O.Box70PleasantView,Tennessee37146 ATTORNEYFORFLIGHTLESSNBIRDFARM,INC.JEFFREYL.LEVY315DeaderickStreet2075FirstAmericanCenterNashville,Tennessee372382075 ATTORNEYFORJOSEPHK.DUGHMAN  % C AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED%C   WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE :L66w Ї  i wOPINION  #wi #  Ӝ-) )- Thiscaserepresentsacontractdisputebetweenasellerandbuyerofemus.FlightlessNBirdFarm,Inc.,wasacorporationinthebusinessofraising,breedingandboardingemus. OnJune25,1994,Mr.DughmanpurchasedapairofemusfromFlightlessNBirdFarm,Inc.[FNBF].TheEmuPurchaseAgreement,enteredintobythepartiesdoesnotcontainanintegrationclause.Itreads,inpertinentpart,asfollows:8  0 1.PurchasePrice. OWNER agreestopay$30,000.00for 6 thefollowingpairoffouryearoldbreedingpairofemuswiththefollowingmicrochipnumbers:  ! ! 8 80 ! !Male  000114FFCD0 0  8  0 Female000063E321 ! ! +8 OWNER willpay$20,000.00uponexecutionofthisAgreement. [  OWNER agreestopaytheremaining$10,000.00withinsix(6) q months.However,ifthefemaleEMUlaysaneggbeforetheexpirationofthesix(6)months, OWNER willagreetopaythe  remaining$10,000.00withintwo(2)weeksofthefirsteggbeing    hatched layeduponnoticeto OWNER .[sic]! ! ! 8  0 2.BoardingAgreement. OWNER and FNBF haveentered #E! intoaBoardingAgreementexecutedonthe25thdayofJune,1994. FNBF shallprovidethecare,maintenance,andboardforthe !&q!# breedingpairspursuanttotheBoardingAgreement.  ! ! 8  0 3.Health. FNBF representsthatonthedateofpurchasethe )>%' breedingpairsareingoodhealthand FNBF knowsofnomedical +T&( problemswiththebirds.Thereafter, OWNER shallberesponsible ,j') forthehealthofthebirdsasreferencedintheBoardingAgreement.  ! ! fX_Xw #wXX_#Thisagreement,datedJune25,1994,containedneitherexpresswarranties 1f,/ nordisclaimers,andcontemplatedpaymentinfullbeforeDecember25,1994.̜.. Mr.DughmanandFNBFalsoenteredintoaBoardingAgreementdiscussedonthesamedayofentryintothepurchaseagreementandbearingthe ;949 dateofJune26,1994.ThisBoardingAgreementreadsinpertinentpart:X$X.t D839  9,5; 8 #.tXX$j#A. 0 WHEREAS ,the Owner hasthisdaypurchased,byseparate  instrument,onepair4yearemu,chipno.Female000063E321  male000114FFCDfrom FNBF withtheintentionofkeepingsaid $ emustogetherasbreedingpairson FNBF ,locatedat2255 8 BearwallowRoad,AshlandCity,Tennessee37015(Bothemupairsarehereinafterreferredtoasthe BreedingPairs ). \ ! !   ***  8 2. 0 BoardandCare.FNBF shallprovidecare,maintenanceand P  boardfortheBreedingParis[sic].Thiscare,maintenanceand d  boardingshallbeallinclusiveofallreasonablyrequiredfeed,labor,housing,incubation,hatching,andothercarewhichmayreasonablyandnormallyberequiredinthemaintenanceofsuchBreedingPairsandalleggsandchicksproducedtherefrom. FNBF shallnotbe  liableforthelossof,orinjurytotheBreedingPairs,oranychickoreggproducedbysuchBreedingPairs,oranyerrorinjudgment,mistake,effectorlaw,andisherebyreleasedfromliabilitywithrespecttothedeathoftheBreedingPairsorthevalueofoneorbothoftheBreedingPairs.  ! !   ***  8 5. 0 ProductionQuantity. Noproductionquantityorqualityis 8 representedorwarrantedwithrespecttotheBreedingPairs.Innocaseshall FNBF beliabletothe Owner forfailureofproductionof \ theBreedingPairs,orareductionintheproductionoftheBreedingPairs.  ! !   8 6. 0 Health. Norepresentationishereinmade,orwarrantgiven # by FNBF ,expressorimplied,astothehealthoftheBreedingPairs $  ortheeggsorthechicksproducedbytheBreedingPair,andnoliabilityshallbeattachedto FNBF forthehealthofanyeggsor &("  chicksproducedbytheBreedingPairs.  ! ! ,***  8 9.  0 Warranties. Eachpartyheretorepresentsandwarrantstothe ,,|'% otherthat(I)ithasallrequisiteauthorityandpowertoexecute,deliverandperformthisagreement;(ii)thisAgreement,whenexecutedanddeliveredwillbethelegal,validandbindingobligationofsaidparty,enforceableinaccordancewithitsterms;and(iii)hemakingandperformanceofthisAgreementhasbeendulyauthorizedbyallnecessaryaction.Nootherwarranties,includingbutnotlimitedtowarrantyoftheBreedingPairs[]health,lifeexpectancyorproductioncapabilitiesaregiven,expressorimplied.X$X.t40- ! ! #.tXX$##      ThesignaturesonthislatterinstrumentaredatedJune25,1994. 8@41  FNBFfiledsuitJune14,1995.Amongotheritems,thecomplaintallegedthatMr.Dughmanhadbreachedthecontractforsaleoftheemusbyfailingtopaythe$10,000.00.Mr.Dughmanansweredandcounterclaimed,allegingasaffirmativedefensesfailureofconsideration,breachofexpressandimpliedwarranties,andnegligentmisrepresentation.Inhiscounterclaimfordamages,Mr.DughmansoughtrescissionofthecontractbasedonbreachofimpliedandexpresswarrantiesandviolationoftheConsumerProtectionAct,requestingtrebledamagesinaccordancewithTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4718109.Tenn.CodeAnn.4718101,etseq.ThecausewastriedbeforeajuryJune56,1994.Afterreceivingtheirinstructions,thejuryreturnedaverdictinfavorofFNBFintheamountof$10,000.00anddismissedMr.Dughmanscounterclaims.Mr.Dughmanappealstheverdictbelow,raisingthefollowingissuesforconsiderationonappeal:8 00 ! ! 1. 0 Whetherthetrialcourterred,asamatteroflawinallowing h thejurytousethesecondcontract(the BoardingAgreement ) x tomodifythetermsofthefirstcontract(the EmuPurchase  Agreement). 0 !0 ! 8 00 ! ! 2. 0 Whetherthecourtfailedtoinstructthejurythat,evenhad   therebeendisclaimersofwarrantyintheEmuPurchaseAgreement,andevenhadthesebeeneffectivetoaddressaclaimundertheUniformCommercialCode,disclaimersarenotaffirmativedefensesagainstaclaimundertheConsumerProtectionAct. 0 !0 ! 8 00 ! ! 3. 0 Whetherthecourtfailedtoinstructthejuryon failureof ,&|!& consideration,whichwasaviablegroundforrescindingtheEmuPurchaseAgreement. 0 !0 !   Intheinterestofbrevityandeconomythelasttwoissueswillbeconsideredinconcert. I.InterpretingMultipleWritings D0+1  Withregardtothefirstissueonappeal,AppellantDughmancorrectly n3.5 assertsonewellsettledruleconcerningmultipleinstruments.Thequestionofwhetheralatercontractisindependenttoorincorporatedwithapriorwritten 619 agreementistobedeterminedbytheintentionofthepartiesasexpressedinthelateragreement. Friersonv.IntlAgric.Corp. ,24Tenn.App.616,148S.W.2d 95= 27,35(1940).Appellantsstrategyistoargueforindependentconstructionoftheinstruments.Absentadisclaimer,contractsforthesaleofgoodscarrywiththemtheimpliedwarrantyoffitnessforaparticularpurposeandtheimpliedwarrantyofmerchantability.Inaddition,thetestimonybelowrevealsassertionsbyMr.DughmanthatTonyNewellhadmadeexpresswarrantiesregardingtheemusinquestion.TheEmuPurchaseAgreementcontainednosuchdisclaimer.TheBoardingAgreement,whichinturnreferencedthecontemporaneousEmuPurchaseAgreement,containedthedisclaimers.IfthePurchaseAgreementwereconsideredinavacuum,withoutanydisclaimer,thewarrantiesareinforce,andmightserveasavaliddefensetoasuitfornonpayment. Inthecaseatbar,however,ajuryoftwelvepersonsconsideredtwowritings,executedcontemporaneouslyandconcerningthesameorsimilarsubject   matter,withaviewtowardgivingfulleffecttobothwritings.Thequestiontobeansweredinthiscaseiswhetherthepartiesintendedthedifferentdocumentstobeconsideredinharmonywitheachother. SeeStovallv.Battel ,619S.W.2d125  (Tenn.App.1981).Thejuryinstructionsadequatelyaddressthisquestionofintent:8 Acontractcanbemadeupofseveraldifferentdocumentsifthepartiesintendedthatthevariousdocumentswouldbeonecontract.  ! !  $  8 @ ***4&8   ! ! 8 Ininterpretingthecontractissues,youmustconstruethecontractaswrittenandcannotcreateanewcontractfortheparties.Youcannotvoidorrewritecontractsjustbecausetheyareilladvised,thepartiesmiscalculatefutureevents,becausethetermsareharshorbecauseoneofthepartiesisunwiseinagreeingtothem.  ! ! Theinstructionadequatelycommendedthemattertothejurysconsiderationforafindingoffact.ThejuryapparentlyconstruedthewritingsinharmonyandrenderedtheverdictfromwhichMr.Dughmanappeals.Reviewoffindingsoffactbyajuryincivilactionsshallbesetasideonlyifthereisnomaterialevidencetosupporttheverdict. Smithv.ScottLewisChevrolet,Inc. ,843S.W.2d9,13 s3.7 (Tenn.App.1992);Tenn.R.App.P.13(199899).ThetestimonyofAppellee,JamesAnthonyNewell,providesamplebasisforthejuryverdictwithregardtotheintentoftheparties.Mr.Newelltestified:8 Q. 0 Mr.Newell,Ihandyouasetofdocumentsthere.Canyou 9&5? identifythosedocumentsforme?  ! ! 8 A. 0 Thisdocumentrighthereisthecontractthat[Mr.   Dughman]signedwhenheboughtthebirds.  ! ! 8 Q. 0 IsthattheonethatsaysEmuPurchaseAgreementontopof  P it?  ! ! 8 A. 0 Yes,sir.TheEmuPurchaseAgreement.Here.Thisisthe 0  contractthathedrewupforus.  ! ! 8 Q. 0 Andthenextpartportionofthatsetistheboarding `  agreement?  ! ! 8 A. 0 Yes,sir.Thisistheboardingagreement.Now[Mr.  Dughman]notonlywantedtobuythebirds,hewantedustokeepthebirdsonourfarmbecauseIguesshelivesinthecityanddidownaplacetoputthem.[sic]Sohewantedustokeepthemonourfarmandraisethebirdsforhim.Andweweregoingtoraisethem,andwewasgoingtosplitthechicksandstuffattheendoftheseason.Soheboughtthebirdsandsignedthiscontract,andthenhesignedthiscontractasaboardingagreementthatthatwewouldkeepthemandtakecareofthemandfeedthemandkeepthempennedandeverything.  ! ! 8 Q. 0 Now,wasthatalldiscussedatthesametime,thathewould @ purchasethem,andthatyouwouldboardthem?  ! ! 8 A. 0 Yeah.Hewantedtobuyapairofbirdsfromus.Hewas p" goingtopurchasethem,andhewantedustokeepthebirdsonthefarm.  ! ! 8 Q. 0 Now,weretheseagreementsenteredintoatthesametime?&"  ! ! 8 A. 0 Onesaysthe25thandonesaysthe26thbutitwasitwasin ( $" thatsameperiod.  ! ! 8 Q. 0 Nowwasityourunderstandingthatthiswasallcontemplated ,P'% asonetransaction?  ! ! 8 A. 0 Oh,yes.Imeanitwaswetalkedaboutitatsupper.Imean 0/*( heboughtthebirdsandwantedustokeepthebirds.Andwetalkedabouthowmuchthebirdswouldbeandandheagreedtodrawthecontractupforthat.Ialreadyhadaboardingcontracthere.Sohesaidwellgowiththisboardingcontract,andyoukeepthebirdsforme.  ! ! o9 Afortiori,thecourtbelowhadnochoicebuttoconsiderthesecontractsinharmony,foritisequallywellsettledthatwhentwoinstrumentsareshowntobe H942 partofthesametransaction,theywillbereadtogether,eachwithreferencetotheother. RealEstateManagementv.Giles, 41Tenn.App.347,((352,293((S.W.2d H 596,599(1956). II.JuryInstructions   c  Thenexttwoissuesrequireananalysisofthesufficiencyofthetrialcourtsjurycharge.Thiscourtwillnotinvalidatejuryinstructionsaslongasthoseinstructionsaccuratelyandfairlydescribetheissuesbeforethejury. SeeStreet p  v.Calvert, 541S.W.2d576,584(Tenn.1976); Sasserv.AverittExpress,Inc.,   [ 839S.W.2d422,430(Tenn.App.1992).WithregardtoAppellantsfirstissueonappealregardingjuryinstructions,Mr.DughmanassertsthatthecourtfailedtoinstructthatnegligentactscansupportaclaimundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.Theactualjurychargereadsinpertinentpart:8  0 ApersonmayviolatetheConsumerProtectionLawwithouthavingdonesowillfullyorknowingly.TheCourtcanonlyconsidertrebledamagesifyoudeterminethattheplaintiffwillfullyorknowinglyviolatedthelaw.  ! ! 8  0 Apersonwillfullyviolatesthislawwhenthepersonintentionallyorconsciouslyusesanunfairordeceptivepracticeoractprohibitedbythelaw.Apersonknowinglyviolatesthislawwhenthepersonusesanunfairordeceptivepracticeoractprohibitedbythelawwithactualawarenessthatthepracticeoractisfalseordeceptive.Actualawarenessmaybeinferredwhenthecircumstances,viewedobjectively,wouldindicatethatareasonablepersonwouldhaveknown,orhavereasontoknow,ofsuchfalsityordeception.RecoveryundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActisnotlimitedtointentionalacts,butalsocontemplatesnegligentconduct.  ! ! H ThetrialcourtclearlyinstructedasMr.Dughmanrequestedbelow. WithregardtoAppellantssecondissueconcerningjuryinstructions,Mr.Dughmanassertsaserrorthefailureofthetrialcourttoinstructthejuryon failureofconsideration.Itappearsfromourviewoftherecord,thatMr.Dughmanfailedtorequestanyinstructionregardingthisaffirmativedefense,whichmustbepledspecificallyattheoutset.% %Tenn.R.Civ.P.% %8.03(1998).TherecordisdevoidofanyevidencethatDughmanobjectedtotheinaccuratejury N94< chargepriortohisMotionforNewTrial.Dughmanthenallegesaninadequacyofthegeneralchargeontheelementsofcontract.Intheabsenceofanobjectionorspecialjuryinstructionrequest,apartymaynotraiseanomittedjurychargeasgroundsforerroronappeal.& &Tenn.R.Civ.P.& &51.02(1998); Rulev.EmpireGas x  Corp., 563S.W.2d551,554(Tenn.1978).  c  Thecourtsinstructionasawholeaddressedtheconsiderationwhichpassedbetweentheparties.Thewritteninstrumentsatissuerecitedtheconsiderationwhichwastohavepassedbetweentheparties.Although,asAppellantarguesinitsbrief,thecourtdidnotinstructspecificallyontheeffectofafailureofconsiderationonthedisputedagreement,thejurycouldnecessarilyinferfromtheinstructionasawholethatifanyoftherequirementsofcontractwereabsent,acontractwouldnotexist,andthereforabreachofthatcontractwouldnotexist.  Whenviewedasawhole,theinstructionsofthetrialcourtwereadequate. V Thesequestionsoffact,submittedtoanddecidedbyaproperlyinstructedjury,shouldnotbeunderminedinthiscourt.Inaccordancewiththeauthoritiescitedabove,thedecisionofthetrialcourtonthejuryverdictshouldbeandisherebyaffirmed.Thecauseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasarenecessary.CostsonappealaretaxedagainstAppellant,Dughman.,5 **  0      D ___________________________+____+,+_+,X$X.t  0      D WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE >'"+ CONCUR:_______________________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE_______________________________________HENRYF.TODD,JUDGE