ÿWPC”  …# VUFa %§ 0q­4 2 w@A 0µ 0D6 z {@‚ 0J 0T 0^` 0h¾ 0r& 0|˜ 0† 0š 1u* 0dŸU6 B9B)VDC AM D3U*BOl 0@»ØûËÓv~žvÓ AOïÆ> 0D D/H Bw ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ<¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(I`$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÔ€9šß9XXÔÓ óÓR¦"¡Ó 3|x« •D–$Ó€—˜D™/š/›/œÓ€©(e(3&â$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ€9×9XXÔÓ óÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  Ó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New d% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ€%&ÔÓ óÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òJune€5,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÎÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ€%&ÔÓ óÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThe€plaintiff€also€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€which€he€sought€to€have€theÏcounterclaim€dismissed€because€the€property€for€which€counter„plaintiff€claimed€damages€wasÏowned€by€a€third€party€who€is€not€a€party€to€this€a‚ction.€€The€summary€judgment€was€byÏagreement€submitted€to€the€Special€Master€for€disposition€along€with€all€other€matters.€€TheÏmatter€was€resolved€adverse€to€the€plaintiff.€€The€chancellor€later€confirmed€the€findings€ofÏthe€master€overruling€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.óó€€Ì ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ€%&ÔÓ óÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThere€is€no€mention€of€"concurrent€findings"€in€Rule€13(d),€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.€€The€rule€does,€however,€contain€a€limiting€provision,€i.e.,€"[u]nless›Ïotherwise€required€by€statute."€€Concurrent€findings€are€controlled€by€T.C.A.€ðð€27„1„113.€€WeÏalso€note€that€the€Advisory€Commission€Comments,€which€specifically€refer€to€T.C.A.€ðð€27„1„113,€state€that€"[œt]his›€subdivision€dealing€with€appellate€review€of€findings€of€fact€inÏcivil€actions,€incorporates€existing€law."óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ€%&ÔÓ óÓÝ  ÝÔT€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ¸ ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¹ªXXdÖ99dÊ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€),(A1-j|` a `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌRICHARD€œGAUSE›€d/b/a€œROOFWORKS›€€€)à àSEVIER€CHANCERYÌOF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9707„CH„00001Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€CHESTER€R.€RAINWATER,€JR.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌJANICE€COLE€d/b/a€RIVERSIDE€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€VACATED€IN€€ÌSHOP€and€JERRY€OGLE,€€€€€€€€€€€€)€à àPART,€AND€REMANDED.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌÌROBERT€L.€OGLE,€JR.,€Sevierville€for€Appellant.ÌÌÌJEFF€D.€œRADER›,€Ogle,€œWynn›€&€œRader›,€Sevierville,€for€Appellees.ÌÌÌÌÌœ›ÓæÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThis€case€originated€as€an€action€to€enforce€a€lien€for€workÏand€materials€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€66„11„126.€€The€plaintiffÏalleged€that€he€had€furnished€equipment,€labor€and€materials€whichÏwere€used€for€improvements€on€the€property€which€the€defendant,ÏCole€occupied€as€lessee€and€the€defendant,€Ogle,€was€œan€owner.›€ÏThe€defendant,€Ogle,€filed€an€answer,€generally€stated€that€heÏowned€an€interest€in€the€subject€property€but€was€without€suffi…cient€knowledge€or€information€to€form€a€belief€as€to€the€truth€ofÏthe€allegations€set€forth€in€the€complaint.ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€defendant,€Cole,€filed€an€answer€andÏcounterclaim.€€In€her€answer€Cole€admitted€to€having€a€leaseholdÏinterest€in€the€property.€€She€further€admitted€that€she€hadÏentered€into€an€agreement€with€the€plaintiff€to€provide€certainÏlabor€and€materials€to€repair€the€roof€of€the€building€which€sheÏwas€lessee€and€which€was€occupied€by€a€sublessee.€€The€sublessee€Ïoperated€a€business€on€the€premises€known€as€Riverside€Gift€Shop.ÌÌà àIn€her€counterclaim,€the€defendant,€Cole,€alleged€that€theÏplaintiff€breached€their€agreement€and€failed€to€perform€the€laborÏin€a€good€workmanlike€manner€and€that€as€a€result€the€interior€andÏcontents€of€the€building€were€damaged€and€she€was€required€to€payÏfor€damages€sustained€by€her€tenant.€She€sought€damages€from€theÍplaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$12,000.00.€€By€amendment€she€increasedÏher€demand€for€damages€by€$4,000.00.ÌÌà àSubsequently,€the€case€was€referred€to€a€special€master.× ƒ. ××  ×€€TheÏspecial€master€found€that€the€plaintiff€had€breached€his€contractÏby€failure€to€finish€the€work€and€by€negligently€doing€the€workÏand€as€a€result€there€was€extensive€damage€to€the€building€and€itsÏcontents.€€He€found€that€the€plaintiff€was€not€entitled€to€aÏjudgment€and€recommended€dismissal€of€the€complaint.€€On€theÏcounterclaim€he€found€that€the€counter„plaintiff€had€sustained€theÏallegations€of€her€counterclaim€and€was€entitled€to€damages€in€theÏtotal€amount€of€$10,657.21.€€The€special€master€found€that€theÏdamages€for€repainting€and€œrecarpeting›€totaled€$4,417.75.ÌÌà àExceptions€were€filed€to€the€master's€report.€€The€chancellorÏat€the€hearing€on€the€exceptions€reduced€the€damages€for€repaint…ing€and€œrecarpeting›€to€$883.55.€€He€entered€a€total€judgment€forÏthe€counter„plaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$7,123.01.€€The€remainderÏof€the€special€master's€report€was€confirmed.ÌÌà àFrom€this€judgment,€the€original€plaintiff€has€appealedÏpresenting€us€with€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÌœ›Ó óÓà8 àà0 àà à1.à àWhether€the€court€erred€in€admitting€evidence€inÏthe€record€of€witnesses€(not€the€owners)€relativeÏto€the€value€of€the€merchandise€and€damagesÏthereto.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à2.à àWhether€the€court€erred€in€not€restricting€theÏamount€of€damages€in€accordance€with€the€proof€ofÏloss.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à3.à àWhether€the€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€roofÏwas€defectively€applied€and€in€determining€damagesÏfor€breach€of€warranty.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à4.à àWhether€the€court€erred€in€awarding€damages€forÏmerchandise€when€the€appellee€was€not€the€owner€ofÏthe€merchandise€and€had€no€cause€of€action€there…for.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à5.à àWhether€the€court€erred€in€finding€appellant€liableÏfor€damage€to€the€interior€of€the€building€includ…ing€carpeting,€which€was€the€obligation€under€theÏsublease€agreement€of€the€sublessee,€Larry€œUttam›,Ïnot€a€party€to€this€litigation.ÌÌœ›ÓæÓÌà àWe€will€first€look€to€our€standard€of€review.€€Our€standardÏof€review€in€nonjury€cases€is€controlled€by€Rule€13(d),€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure€i.e.,€"[œu]nless›€otherwise€required€byÏstatute,€review€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€in€civilÏactions€shall€be€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presump‚tion€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,Íunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise."€€To€theÏextent,€however,€that€there€is€a€concurrent€finding€of€fact€by€theÏspecial€master€and€chancellor,€we€must€be€guided€by€T.C.A.€ððÏ27„1„113€and€the€cases€construing€that€statutory€enactment.ÌÌœ›Ó óÓà8 àà àT.C.A.€ðð€27„1„113€provides€the€proper€standard€forÏthis€Court€to€follow€when€reviewing€the€findings€of€aÏmaster€in€which€a€chancellor€concurs:€"Where€there€hasÏbeen€a€concurrent€finding€of€the€master€and€chancellor,Ïwhich€under€the€principles€now€obtaining€is€binding€onÏthe€appellate€courts,€the€Court€of€Appeals€shall€notÏhave€the€right€to€disturb€such€finding."€The€concurrentÏfinding€of€a€master€and€a€chancellor€has€the€same€forceÏand€effect€as€a€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trialÏjudge.€òòœCoates›€v.€Thompsonóó,€713€S.W.2d€83€(Tenn.€App.Ï1986),€citing€òòœSchoen›€v.€œJ.C.›€Bradford€&€Coóó.,€642€S.W.2dÏ420€(Tenn.€App.€1982);€òòœFerrell›€v.€œElrod›óó,€63€Tenn.€App.Ï129,€469€S.W.2d€678€(1971).€Such€a€concurrence€is€con…clusive€on€appeal€unless€(1)€the€issue€is€one€not€properÏfor€reference€to€a€master,€(2)€the€concurrence€is€basedÏon€an€error€of€law€or€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact,Ïor€(3)€the€concurrence€is€not€supported€by€any€materialÏevidence.€òòœCoates›óó,€supra.€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòœStaggs›€v.€œHerff›€MotorÏCoóó.,€216€Tenn.€113,€390€S.W.2d€245€(1965).€Thus,€we€mustÏaffirm€the€Chancellor€unless€one€of€these€three€excep…tions€applies€in€this€case.ÌÌòòHaynes€v.€Wilsonóó,€(Tenn.€App.€Opinion€filed€at€Knoxville,€DecemberÏ28,€1994.)ÌÌÌÌœ›ÓæÓà àUnder€the€facts€in€this€case,€we€find€that€the€issues€pre…sented€do€not€come€within€œany€of›€the€three€œexceptions›€noted€aboveÏand€were€proper€issues€to€refer€to€a€œSpecial›€œMaster.›€Therefore,Ïthe€concurrent€findings€of€the€Special€Master€and€œchancellor›€areÍsubject€to€the€"material€evidence€rule."œ× ƒ/ ××  ×›€€Our€review€of€the€recordÏreflects€that€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€concurrentÏfindings€of€fact€concerning€liability€and€to€some€damages.€€TheÏonly€issues€which€we€will€discuss€are€those€where€the€chancellorÏdisagreed€with€the€special€master€or€where€there€was€an€erroneousÏapplication€of€the€law.ÌÌà àThe€first€issue€deals€with€a€pure€question€of€law.€€TheÏquestion€presented€is€whether€a€witness,€who€is€not€an€owner€ofÏproperty€may€testify€to€the€value€of€merchandise€and€damages€toÏit.Ì"[A]€witness€who€is€familiar€with€the€value€of€property€of€theÏsame€character€may€testify€to€that€value€œ€.€.€.€"›€€òòWilson€v.ÏBryantóó,€167€Tenn.€107,€67€S.W.2d€133,€134€(1934).ÌÌà àA€witness,€Mr.€œBaiju›€œHarjani›,€the€sublesseeððs€shop€manager,Ïwas€allowed€to€testify€to€the€value€of€the€damaged€merchandiseÏover€plaintiff's€objection.€€We€find€this€testimony€to€be€errone…ously€admitted€for€two€reasons.€€Firstly,€the€witness€was€neverÍqualified€as€being€familiar€with€the€value€of€property€of€the€sameÏcharacter.€€Secondly,€the€measure€of€damages€used€by€the€witnessÏdoes€not€comport€with€existing€law.ÌÌà àIt€is€a€well„accepted€principle€of€law€in€this€state€thatÏdamages€to€personal€property€may€be€measured€by€either€the€cost€ofÏrepair€or€the€reduction€in€fair€market€value.€òòSeeóó€Coiner,€"Tennes…see€Law€of€œDamages,"›€Section€6„3.€This€rule€is€further€set€forthÏin€the€case€of€òòAnderson€v.€Inmanóó,€3€Tenn.€App.€195€(1926),€whichÏhas€been€incorporated€into€Tennessee€Pattern€Instructions,€CivilÏ14.40€Ô&  Ôas€follows:€ÌÌœ›Ó óÓà8 à.€.€.€if€the€damages€have€not€been€repaired,€or€if€theÏproperty€isÔ'  Ô€not€capable€of€repair€so€as€to€restore€theÏthree€factors€of€function,€appearance,€and€value€as€theyÏexisted€immediately€before€the€[incident],€then€theÏmeasure€of€damages€is€the€difference€in€the€fair€marketÏvalue€of€the€property€immediately€before€the€[incident]Ïand€immediately€after€the€[incident].ÌÌœ›ÓæÓÓ ` ܇XçÈ“X ÓÌà àThe€following€rule€has€also€been€enunciated:ÌÌœ›Ó óÓà8 àà àIn€this€state,€the€ordinary€and€basic€measure€ofÏdamages€for€injury€to€personal€property€is€the€differ…ence€between€its€market€value€immediately€before€andÏimmediately€after€the€injury.€òòIrving€Pulp€and€Paper,ÏLtd.€v.€œDunbar›€Transfer€and€Storage€Coóó.,€732€F.œ2d›€511Ï(œ6th›€Cir.€1984);€òòœYazoo›€and€M.€V.€R.€Co.€v.€Williamsóó,€182ÏTenn.€241,€185€S.W.2d€527,€529€(Tenn.€1945);€TennesseeÏJurisprudence,€Damages,€ðð€18,€page€42.ÌÌœ›ÓæÓÓ ` ܇XœÈ“X ÓÌà àNone€of€the€proper€measures€were€employed€in€this€case.€€TheÏwitness,€Mr.€œBaiju›€œHarjani›,€who€testified€as€to€the€damages€to€theÏmerchandise,€testified€only€as€to€the€cost€of€the€damaged€orÏdestroyed€property.€We€hold€that€the€testimony€of€Mr.€œHarjani›€wasÏimproperly€admitted€and€further€the€testimony€if€allowed€is€insuf…ficient€evidence€as€a€matter€of€law€upon€which€a€judgment€forÏdamages€to€personal€property€can€be€based.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€insists€that€the€damages€for€personalÏproperty€should€be€restricted€to€the€amount€of€loss€as€stated€in€aÏsworn€proof€of€loss€prepared€by€the€appellee.€€We€agree€that€theÏproof€of€loss€was€admissible€and€the€record€reflects€that€it€wasÏadmitted€into€evidence.€€Admissions€can€be€used€not€only€as€sub…stantive€evidence€but€also€as€evidence€touching€the€credibility€ofÏthe€witness.€€Admissions€are€in€no€way€conclusive.€€òòSeeóó€TennesseeÏRules€of€Evidence,€Rule€803(1.2).€€We€find€no€merit€in€this€issue.ÌÌà àAs€to€the€third€issue,€there€is€material€evidence€to€supportÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€special€master.€€Thus,€apply…ing€the€material€evidence€rule€as€we€have€discussed€òòsupraóó,€we€findÏno€merit€in€this€issue.ÌÌà àIssues€four€and€five€are€interrelated€and€we€will€considerÏthem€together.ÌÌà àUnder€the€sublease€agreement€between€counter„plaintiff,€Cole,Ïand€the€sublessee,€œUttam›,€we€find€the€following€provisions:ÌÌœ›Ó óÓà8 àà0 àà à7.à àò òòòMaintenance€and€Repairóó.ó óÌÌà8 àà àa.€€Sublessor€shall€make€all€structural€repairsÏsuch€as€supports,€roof€and€the€exterior€walls€of€theÏbuilding€in€a€timely€manner€during€the€term€of€thisÏlease.ÌÌà8 àà àb.€€Sublessee€shall,€during€the€term€of€œthis€agree…ment›€at€his€sole€expense,€otherwise€maintain€both€theÏinterior€and€exterior€of€the€leased€premises€in€as€goodÏorder€and€repair€as€it€is€at€the€commencement€of€thisÏlease,€reasonable€wear€and€tear€excepted,€nor€will€theÏsublessee€suffer€or€permit€any€waste€or€neglect€ofÏproperty€and€will€repair€or€restore€the€same€as€often€asÏmay€be€necessary€in€order€to€keep€the€leased€premises€inÏa€good€state€of€repair.ÌÌœ›ÓæÓà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌà àTherefore,€under€the€express€terms€of€the€contract€betweenÏthe€sublessor€and€sublessee,€the€sublessor€is€required€to€maintainÏthe€roof€in€good€repair.€€A€failure€to€do€so,€even€if€the€fault€ofÏanother,€would€constitute€a€breach€of€the€sublease€agreement.€€IfÏthere€is€such€a€breach€and€the€sublessee€suffers€damages,€he€wouldÏbe€entitled€to€recover€his€losses€from€the€sublessor,€includingÏdamages€to€the€areas€where€the€sublessee€was€responsible€forÍmaintenance.€€ð ðThe€purpose€of€assessing€damages€in€breach€ofÏcontract€cases€is€to€place€the€plaintiff€as€nearly€as€possible€inÏthe€same€position€she€would€have€been€in€had€the€contract€beenÏperformed,€but€the€œnonbreaching›€party€is€not€to€be€put€in€anyÏbetter€position€by€recovery€of€damages€for€the€breach€of€theÏcontract€than€he€would€have€been€if€the€contract€had€been€fullyÏperformed.€òòAction€Ads,€Inc.€v.€William€B.€Tanner€Coóó.,€592€S.W.2dÏ572€(Tenn.€App.€1979).ðð€€òòœLammons›€v.€Chamberlainóó,€909€S.W.2d€795Ï(Tenn.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àIt€cannot€be€seriously€argued€that€the€sublessee€did€notÏsuffer€damages€from€defects€in€the€roof.€€Under€the€facts€of€thisÏcase,€the€sublessee€withheld€$10,000.00€in€rent€for€damages€to€theÏinterior€of€the€building€and€the€merchandise€located€therein.€€TheÏrecord€does€not€reflect€whether€any€of€the€monies€withheld€wasÏever€paid€to€the€sublessor.€€In€any€event,€the€sublessee€couldÏhave€maintained€an€action€against€the€sublessor€for€damages€proxi…mately€caused€by€the€defective€roof,€including€areas€that€theÏsublessee€was€obligated€to€maintain€under€the€terms€of€the€leaseÏprovided€the€maintenance€costs€were€increased€by€the€defectiveÏroof.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€issues€four€and€five€are€governed€by€the€follow…ing€rules€of€law.ÌÌœ›Ó óÓà8 àà àAlthough€not€expressly€so€denominated€in€the€com…plaint,€the€gravamen€of€this€suit€is€indemnity;€that€is,Ïthe€plaintiff€is€seeking€reimbursement€of€damages€heÏexpects€to€pay€to€a€third€party€for€damages€suffered€byÏthe€third€party€as€a€result€of€defendant's€defectiveÏperformance€of€a€contract€with€plaintiff€or€defendant'sÏbreach€of€warranty€in€a€sale€to€plaintiff.Ì€Ìà8 àà àContracts€of€indemnification€may€be€express,€or€mayÏarise€by€implication€from€the€relationship€of€the€par…ties.€òòHouseboating€Corp.€of€America€v.€Marshallóó,€Tenn.Ï1977,€553€S.W.2d€588.Ìà8 à€Ìà8 àà àA€person€who,€in€whole€or€in€part,€has€discharged€aÏduty€which€is€owed€by€him€but€which,€as€between€himselfÏand€another,€should€have€been€discharged€by€the€other,Ïis€entitled€to€indemnity€from€the€other€unless€barred€byÏthe€wrongful€nature€of€his€own€conduct.€òòSouthern€Coal€&ÏCoke€Co.€v.€Beech€Grove€Min.€Coóó.,€53€Tenn.€App.€108,€381ÏS.W.2d€299€(1963);€òòCarter€v.€E.T.€&€œW.N.C.›€œTransp›.€Coóó.,Ï35€Tenn.€App.€196;€243€S.W.2d€505€(1951).Ì€Ìà8 àà àA€contract€of€indemnity€need€not€be€express;€indem…nity€may€be€recovered€if€the€evidence€establishes€anÏimplied€contract.€In€addition,€a€right€to€indemnityÏexists€whenever€one€party€is€exposed€to€liability€by€theÏaction€of€another€who,€in€law€or€in€equity,€should€makeÏgood€the€loss€of€the€other.€The€right€of€implied€indem…nity€in€contractual€cases€is€based€upon€a€breach€ofÏcontract€by€the€person€against€whom€indemnity€is€sought,Ï.€.€.€.ÌÌÌòòœStiver›€œMktg›.,€Inc.,€v.€Performance€Bus.€Forms,€Incóó.,€1991€Tenn.ÏApp.€LEXIS€930.ÌÌœ›ÓæÓÌà àThis€case€may€be€analogized€to€the€authority€set€out€above.€ÏThe€counterclaim€did€not€expressly€include€a€claim€specificallyÏdesignated€as€a€claim€for€indemnity€but€it€does€include€a€claimÏfor€damages€paid€out€to€her€tenant.ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€counter„plaintiff€is€entitled€to€recoverÏfrom€the€counter„defendant€for€damages€to€the€merchandise€of€theÏsublessee€and€other€damages€for€which€the€sublessee€could€look€toÏthe€sublessor€for€payment.€€Therefore,€we€find€no€merit€in€issuesÏfour€and€five.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€all€issuesÏexcept€the€first.€€We€find€that€the€wrong€measure€of€damages€wasÏutilized€in€determining€damages€to€the€sublesseeððs€merchandise.€ÏAccordingly,€the€judgment€for€damage€to€the€merchandise€is€vacat…ed.€€This€case€must€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€retrial€andÏrecalculation€of€damages€to€the€merchandise€located€within€theÏbuilding€in€question.ÌÌÌà àThe€appellee€in€her€brief€has€asked€this€court€to€modify€theÏaward€to€her€by€increasing€it€by€$2,887.50,€which€she€claims€wouldÏcompensate€her€for€the€full€amount€she€was€required€to€pay€forÍrepairs€to€the€roof.€€There€is€material€evidence€to€support€theÏfindings€of€the€special€master€and€the€concurrent€findings€of€theÏchancellor.€€Under€these€circumstances,€appellee's€request€must€beÏdenied.€€ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€equally€between€the€appellant,€Richard€œ›œGause›€Ïand€the€appellee,€Janice€Cole.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€such€other€action€as€is€necessary€in€accordance€withÏthis€opinion.ÌœÌÌÓ óÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€JudgeÌÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€{qXXd×XXd×7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌÌÌRICHARD€GAUSE€d/b/a€ROOFWORKS€€€)à àSEVIER€CHANCERYÌOF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9707„CH„00001Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€CHESTER€R.€RAINWATER,€JR.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌJANICE€COLE€d/b/a€RIVERSIDE€€€€€)à àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€VACATED€IN€€ÌSHOP€and€JERRY€OGLE,€€€€€€€€€€€€)€à àPART,€AND€REMANDED.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÓæÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Sevier€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€was€some€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.Ìà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€all€issuesÏexcept€damages€for€merchandise.€€We€find€that€the€wrong€measure€ofÏdamages€was€utilized€in€determining€damages€to€the€sublesseeððsÏmerchandise.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€for€damage€to€the€merchan…dise€is€vacated.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€aÍretrial€and€recalculation€of€damages€to€the€merchandise€locatedÏwithin€the€building€in€question.Ìà àCosts€are€taxed€equally€between€the€appellant,€Richard€Gause€Ïand€the€appellee,€Janice€Cole.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€such€other€action€as€is€necessary€in€accordance€withÏthis€opinion.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAM›