ÿWPCœ †\ѨÑÁÚž#s(Ô#®ì¾úzgâ7dú?:ô {I~™O/T¡qPÐî`‚ÙY:í2†O/Å#/¿Ô9§èošÄ*N`Iæ8d«¾ 5z]¥WLÃ|Ј·’£¦€·ÒË̸ѹ~Àj©+ß$ùa‘ËàdçDù𙯲6Ãh;+ ´ÆàCAúï(ž±¹Ò.À¹–ör7Š^ɼÜÀœÀ…·*Ÿám|Óóù‚å9´¶\~<8vûcÑÆÆäm!…Ù+¸ãv!<”ž"½Ø)=˜) Æt_—E»øj½]‰óÊLa.f„R­ >ß’‡”òˆé2%?d†wß½y)=w$=b.îY%Óºž™Jö¸z£K«mèp׊‰ÝW¦He_ƒÀÄÞÁ½ÓîÀ(Ø—3‘èÔ ƒÅŸˆI UíÿBÉœÒQê8æ8è€èUï¯ë+†»MͳN2JLHcÞ®“#ÃÀfƒ–:ÞÊË&#ãªÕ8uN–ó%s(Él˜kwéÑ­¥$e´ºá?ôhüóQ¶ò¿Ç¹e#Dô#Où VIžbhdÇšj;Nñ aù:«´¾›à+OÎDôƒ,y½9¬„%r m‘õ­—ºGo©…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0û¥ UN  wšî 4ˆ œ « ³ U:Ñ U:)))))))))))))))))))))))) Bccccc D3€€€ 0D³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³ AO÷ÆFF 0D  D/P B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓŒ $¡¡Ñ7€1dX»d»Xdð7ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼±g¼»I»ÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularLDM"eNr‚OPeQRSTDUDVWDXYDZ\ ]D^_D`aDbcDdÓ€pýhµ&Ìð3|xr Ô€ Xl|XXXÔÔ€ îšúîX Xl|ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ d± î îšúÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€28,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô|˜ ô  d±ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€ Xl|XXXÔÔ€ îšúîX Xl|ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ d± î îšúÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€25,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô|˜ ô  d±ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒŒ !ÝÑ7€lÆXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼ôè¼XXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýñdñ›ñdñÑ  ÑÔ€¼¼¼¼ôèÔÑ7€lÆ»XdðXXdð7Ñò òòòñpññdñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@Ex± tt0"°°¨Órßñdññpññpñßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@Ex± tt0"°°¨Órßñpññdñ›ñdñà@  ÌàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@LL(ÌàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌÌÌó óóóKENNETH€GRISSIM,à h àà À àà  à)à p àWASHINGTON€CIRCUITÐ ö F Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p à(No.€18506)Ð  V Ðà ` àPlaintiff/Appellantà h àà À àà  à)Ð  f Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNO.€03A01„9807„CV„00222Ð & v Ðv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð 6†  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHON.€THOMAS€J.€SEELEY,€JR.Ð F–  ÐPOWELL€CONSTRUCTIONà À àà  à)à p àJUDGEÐ V¦  ÐCOMPANY,€INC.,à h àà À àà  à)Ð f¶  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àAFFIRMEDÐ vÆ  Ðà ` àDefendant/Appelleeà À àà  à)Ð †Ö ÐÌÌJames€H.€Price,€Knoxville,€for€Appellant.ÌRick€J.€Bearfield,€Johnson€City,€for€Appellee.ÌÌÌò òòòà@¿¿(ÌàÔ‡ µ‰ ¼¼ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†¼¼  µ‰7#ԈРöF ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óóóINMAN,€Senior€JudgeÐ >Ž ÐÌÓÓÓ  Óà ` àIn€this€jury€case€the€plaintiff€successfully€sought€damages€for€wrongfulÏdischarge€from€employment,€and€this€is€not€an€issue€on€appeal.Ìà ` àThe€plaintiff€also€sought€damages€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€œ50„1„102ñQñ,ñQñ›€allegingÏthat€he€was€induced€by€false€or€deceptive€statements€to€accept€employment€by€theÏdefendant.€€This€theory€of€recovery€was€the€subject€of€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdictÏwhich€was€granted.€€The€issue€for€determination€is€the€propriety€of€a€directedÏverdict.Ìà ` àIn€ruling€on€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€a€trial€judge€must€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€evidence€in€favor€of€the€non„moving€party,€allow€all€reasonableÏinferences€from€that€evidence€in€the€non„moving€partyððs€favor,€discard€allÏcountervailing€œevidenceñRñ,ñRñ›€and€grant€a€directed€verdict€if€reasonable€minds€could€drawÏbut€one€conclusion.€œñSñ€ñSñ›€òòBland€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.,€óó944€S.W.2d€372€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€Ð ¾62/ ÐHowever,€if€a€dispute€exists€as€œtoñTñpñTñ›€any€material€fact€or€if€there€is€any€doubt€as€to€theÏconclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€€òòœArcata›Ð þ:N63G ÐGraphics€Co.€v.€Heidelberg€Harris,€Inc.,€óó874€S.W.2d€15,€21€(Tenn.€App.€1993),Ð ° Ðciting€òòCountry€Maid€Dairy,€Inc.€v.€Hunter,€óó416€S.W.2d€367,€372€(Tenn.€App.€1967).€Ð Ð  ÐœñUñÌñUñ›à ` àT.C.A.€ðð€50„1„102€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÓÓò òà8 ` àðð€50„1„102.€€False€or€deceptive€representations,€false€advertising€orÐ  ` Ðfalse€pretenses;€damages:ó óÐ n` 8"` 8" Ðà8 ` à(a)(1)€It€is€unlawful€for€any€person€to€induce,€influence,€persuade€orÏengage€workers€to€change€from€one€(1)€place€to€another€in€this€state,Ïor€to€bring€workers€of€any€class€or€calling€into€this€state€to€work€in€anyÏtype€of€labor€in€this€state€through€or€by€means€of€false€or€deceptiveÏrepresentations,€false€advertising€or€false€pretenses,€concerning€theÏkind€and€character€of€the€work€to€be€done,€or€amount€and€character€ofÏthe€compensation€to€be€paid€for€such€work,€or€the€sanitary€or€otherÏconditions€of€the€employment,€or€as€to€the€existence€or€nonexistenceÏof€a€strike,€or€other€trouble€pending€between€employer€and€employees,Ïat€the€time€of€or€prior€to€such€engagement.Ð ` 8"` 8" ÐÌÓÓà ` àThe€evidence€offered€by€the€plaintiff€revealed€that€on€August€19,€1992,€heÏmet€with€the€President€of€Powell€Construction€Company€(PCC)€to€discussÏemployment.€€He€testified€that€he€was€offered€a€contract,€which€he€accepted,€for€aÏstipulated€salary€plus€annual€bonuses€of€five€percent€of€the€profits€of€the€œñVñUñVññWñuñWñtility›ÏœñXñDñXññYñdñYñivision›€of€PCC.€œñZñ€Contractors€create€what€are€known€in€the€industry€as€ð ðover/underÏstatementsðð€to€show€the€anticipated€profit€(or€loss)€for€each€job.€€The€plaintiffÏcontends€he€later€used€the€profit€figures€shown€on€the€July€1992€over/underÏstatement€to€calculate€the€amount€of€potential€bonus€payments€to€which€he€wouldÏbe€entitled,€but€he€conceded€that€he€understood€the€July€1992€over/under€statementÏto€be€only€a€projection€of€ñEñanticipatedñEñ€profit€and€that€he€was€aware€of€the€fluctuatingÏnature€of€over/under€statements.€€ñZñ›Ìà ` àœñ\ñShortly€after€Mr.€Grissim€went€to€work€for€PCC,€he€was€asked€to€study€aÏconstruction€project€already€undertaken€by€PCC€known€as€the€Rockfish€Creek€JobÏand€to€make€a€determination€of€its€profitability.€€Rockfish€Creek€was€one€of€theÏprojects€shown€on€the€July€1992€over/under€statement.€€Mr.€Grissim€determined€thatÏthe€project€was€ð ðvery€well€behindðð€and€estimated€that€PCC€would€lose€money€on€theÏjob.€€As€a€result€of€Mr.€Grissimððs€Rockfish€Creek€study,€the€estimated€profit€of€theÏUtility€Division€was€adjusted€downward€in€the€latter€part€of€1992.€€The€Utility›ÏDivision€ultimately€suffered€a€loss€and€the€plaintiff€did€not€receive€a€year„end€bonus.ñ\ññ]ñÌà ¸ àñ]ñThe€method€of€accounting€by€construction€companies€is€not€disputed.€ÏBecause€construction€jobs€may€span€two€or€more€years€with€potentially€large€profitsÏ(or€losses),€the€Internal€Revenue€Service€requires€a€construction€company€toÏrecognize€profit€(or€loss)€from€that€job€each€fiscal€year,€even€though€the€job€is€notÏcomplete€at€the€end€of€the€year.€€To€accomplish€this,€contractors€prepare€what€areÏknown€in€the€industry€as€ð ðover/under€statementsðð€to€show€the€anticipated€profit€(orÏloss)€for€each€job.€€The€over/under€statement€is€generally€prepared€on€a€monthlyÏbasis,€but€the€profit€or€loss€shown€on€the€over/under€for€the€last€month€of€the€fiscalÏyear€is€the€profit€or€loss€that€is€recognized€for€that€tax€year.Ìà ` àWhen€the€first€over/under€statement€for€a€job€is€prepared,€it€will€show€theÏestimated€profit€at€the€time€the€job€was€bid€because€nothing€has€altered€that€originalÐ ¼8 41 Ðprojection.€€As€the€job€progresses,€the€estimated€profit€or€loss€will€be€adjusted€asÏvarious€factors€dictate,€as€for€instance,€if€cost€of€materials€increase€or€constructionÏdelays€occur€in€a€given€month,€the€ensuing€over/under€statement€will€change€toÏreflect€the€increased€expenses€and€lower€estimated€profit.€€This€method€ofÏaccounting€necessarily€requires€that€profits€and€costs€be€estimated,€and€theyÏfluctuate€significantly€over€the€course€of€the€contract.€But,€a€construction€companyÏhas€a€very€real€incentive€to€accurately€predict€profit€and€loss€and€to€recognize€itsÏlosses€as€soon€as€it€knows€of€them,€because€failure€to€do€so€causes€the€company€toÏpay€income€tax€on€anticipated€profit€that€will€never€be€realized.Ìà ` àPlaintiff,€long€experienced€in€the€construction€field,€testified€that€he€wasÏshown€a€July€1992€over/under€statement€for€the€Powell€Utility€Division€at€the€timeÏhe€met€representatives€of€PCC€to€discuss€employment€in€August,€1992.€€HeÏknowledged€that€he€understood€that€the€over/under€statement€given€to€him€duringÏhis€ñIñintervierwñIññIñinterviewñIñ€showed€only€projected€or€anticipated€profits€for€the€Division.€ÏSpecifically,€he€testified:ÌÓÓà8 ` àQ:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àSo€are€you€telling€the€jury€that€Mr.€Powell€promised€to€pay€youÐ $à Ðfive€percent€of€[the€estimated€profit€on€the€July€1992€over/underÏstatement]€$4,854,852.00?Ð ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àA:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àIf€all€of€these€jobs€projected€out€as€the€projection€showed,€thatÐ Ð( $" Ðwould€be€it,€yes,€sir.Ð ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌÓÓAfter€some€discussion,€the€parties€agreed€that€$3,849,499.00€ñ^ñwasñ^ññ_ñisñ_ñ€the€estimatedÏprofit€on€the€July€1992€ñMññJñœñJññMñoverñKñ/ñKññLñnñLñunder€statement.ÌÓÓà8 ` àQ:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àOkay.€€Are€you€telling€this€jury€that€Mr.€Powell€promised€thatÐ @0+) Ðheððs€give€you€five€percent€of€$3,849,499.00?Ð ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àA:à8¸ ` 8"` 8"àWe€never€discussed€what€the€profits€were€at€that€date.€Ð p3À., ÐThis€was€handed€to€me€and€showed€me€and€told€me€thatÏhe€would€give€me€five€percent€of€a€net€profit€of€theÏorganization€at€the€end€of€that€year.Ð ¸ ภà Ðâ âÐ °730 Ðà8 ` àQ:à8¸ ` 8"` 8"à.€.€.€I€want€you€to€tell€the€jury,€if€you€can,€what€thatÐ ° Ðsomething€is€that€youððre€asking€them€to€give€you€fiveÏpercent€of?Ð ¸ ภà Ðâ âÌà8 ` àA:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àSir,€the€only€think€I€can€do€is€ask€the€jury€to€say€that€I€wasÐ ð@ Ðexpected€to€get€five€percent€of€the€profits€earned€for€that€year,Ïwhich€this€[over/under€statement]€does€not€disclose.€€This€onlyÏdiscloses€up€to€July.Ð ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà0 ` àQ:à0¸ ` $` $à.€.€.€Iððm€asking€you€about€July.€€Do€you€have€any€evidence€.€.€.Ð@ ¸ $¸ $ ÐÌà8 ` àA:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àI€do€not.Ð`° ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àQ:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"à.€.€.€that€when€this€[over/under€statement]€was€made€in€July€thatÐ €Ð  Ðit€was€untrue€at€the€time€it€was€made?Ð ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àA:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àIððll€have€to€say€no€because€that€was€the€only€thing€I€had.а¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àQ:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àOkay.€€And€itððs€the€only€thing€you€have€today,€isnððt€it?ÐÐ ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àA:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àAs€far€as€Iððm€concerned.Ðð@¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àQ:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àOkay.€€And€itððs€true,€isnððt€it,€that€the€only€basis€for€your€claimÐ ` Ðunder€the€statute€50„1„102€„€the€only€basis,€the€only€false€thingÏthat€youððre€contenñ`ñdñ`ññañtñañing€was€said€to€you€was€the€profit€and€lossÏstatement€„€the€over€and€under.€€Isnððt€that€right?Ð ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àA:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àIððm€not€saying€today€that€it€was€false€at€that€time.€€But€it€turnedÐ `!° Ðout€to€be€that€it€was€probably€a€false€statement€that€I€was€shown.Ð ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àQ:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àWell,€it€changed,€didnððt€it?Ð$ภ8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àA:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àIt€changed.а&" ¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àQ:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àThatððs€different€than€being€false,€isnððt€it?ÐÐ( $"¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àA:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àWell,€yes,€it€is.Ðð*@&$¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà8 ` àQ:à0¸ ` 8"` 8"àIt€changed?Ð-`(&¸ 8"¸ 8" ÐÌà ` àA:à ¸ àIt€changed.Ð 0/€*( ÐÌÓÓà ` àThe€plaintiffððs€testimony€indicates€that€he€understood€the€July€1992Ïover/under€statement€to€be€only€a€projection€of€anticipated€profit,€and€that€he€wasÏcognizant€of€the€fluctuating€nature€of€over/under€statements.€€He€further€ñMñcondededñMññMñconcededñMñÏthat€PCC€never€represented€the€July€1992€over/under€statement€to€be€a€statement€ofÏactual€profits,€which€could€not€be€determined€until€the€end€of€the€year.Ð Ð9 52 Ðà ` àA€former€employee€of€PCC,€Bruce€Hawks,€testified€that€the€July,€1992Ïover/under€ñMñstaementñMññMñstatementñMñ€contained€inaccurate€information€which€inflated€the€estimatedÏprofit€of€the€Utility€Division.€€He€testified€that€the€estimated€profit€on€the€RockfishÏJob€should€have€been€about€$650,000.00€rather€than€$893,000.00€as€shown€by€theÏJuly€statement.€€As€it€developed,€the€Rockfish€Job€eventually€resulted€in€a€loss€inÏexcess€of€one€million€dollars,€thus€depriving€the€plaintiff€of€a€bonus.Ìà ` àRecognizing€that€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Hawks€created€a€factual€dispute€as€toÏthe€accuracy€of€the€July,€1992€statement,€the€trial€judge€discussed€the€significance,Ïas€a€matter€of€law,€of€the€variance.€€He€foundÌÓÓà8 ` àIf€you€subtract€$184,852.00,€the€amount€that€Mr.€Hawks€said€wasÏprofit€that€should€not€have€been€recognized€on€Rockfish€Creek,€youÏcome€up€with€a€figure€of€$4,670,000.00€.€.€.€[T]heñMñ›ñMñ€revised€estimatedÏfigure€that€Mr.€Grissim€should€have€been€looking€at€would€have€beenÏ$4,670,000.00€instead€of€$4,854,852.00.€€Thatððs€a€variance€of€pointÏ.038;€in€other€words,€itððs€a€variance€of€less€than€4€percent.€€That€is€notÏa€significant€variance€.€.€.€Itððs€just€a€relatively€small€amount€whenÏconsidered€as€part€of€the€total€revised€estimated€profit€figure.€€TheÏCourt€finds€that€no€reasonable€mind€would€find€that€Mr.€GrissimÏwould€have€looked€at€$4,670,000.00€and€come€to€any€other€conclusionÏthan€the€one€he€came€to€at€the€time,€was€that€it€would€be€better€for€himÏto€go€to€work€for€Powell€Construction€Company.Ð ` 8"` 8" ÐÌÓÓà ` àBy€adjusting€the€July,€1992,€estimated€profit€downward€according€to€Mr.ÏHawksðð€testimony,€the€trial€judge€acknowledged€that€he€had€taken€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€Mr.€Grissim,€reasoning€that€aÏ$184,852.00€reduction€in€the€July€1992€estimated€profits,€a€ñMñvrianceñMññMñvarianceñMñ€of€less€than€4Ïpercent,€would€not€have€affected€Mr.€Grissimððs€decision€to€accept€PCCððs€offer.Ìà ` àThe€appellant€argues€that€T.C.A.€ðð€50„1„102€does€not€require€that€anyÏmisrepresentation€be€a€material€one,€and€that€a€material€misrepresentation€is€notÏrequired€to€state€a€claim€for€negligent€misrepresentation.€€As€to€the€latter€insistence,Ïâ âsuffice€to€state€that€the€plaintiff€did€not€allege€negligent€misrepresentation,€and€didÐ  6ð1/ Ðnot€present€this€issue€to€the€trial€court.€€He€cannot€raise€the€issue€on€appeal.€ÏòòSimpson€v.€Frontier€C.€C.€Union,€óó810€S.W.2d€147€(Tenn.€1991).Ð Ð  Ðâ âà ` àAt€common€law,€an€action€for€fraudulent€ñMñmisrepresenttionñMññMñmisrepresentationñMñ€requires€that€it€beÏso€material€as€to€determine€the€conduct€of€the€œparties,ñbñ€ñbñ›€òòAtkins€v.€Kirkpatrick,óó823Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€547€(Tenn.€App.€1993),€and€the€materiality€of€a€misrepresentation,€if€one€isÏfound,€is€a€question€of€law€for€the€court.€€òòBauer€v.€Mutual€of€Omaha,€óó460€S.W.2dÐ P   Ð366€(Tenn.€App.€1969).Ìà ` àThe€appellant€argues€that€since€the€Legislature€did€not€provide€that€any€falseÏrepresentation€proscribed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€50„1„102(a)(1)€must€be€a€material€one,€itÏfollows€that€the€lack€of€materiality€as€found€by€the€trial€judge€is€an€impermissibleÏñMñœñMñengraftmentñMñ›ñMñ€on€the€statute.€€The€appellee€responds€by€arguing€that€the€courts€shouldÏnot€displace€common€law€more€than€is€necessarily€required€for€statutoryÏconstruction€and€should€take€care€neither€to€restrict€the€coverage€of€the€statute€norÏexpand€its€scope,€citing€òòñMñœñMñMichaelsñMñ›ñMñ€v.€ñMñœñMñAtripñMñ›ñMñ,€óó844€S.W.2d€655€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€TheÐ P   Ðmateriality€of€any€fact€in€a€contested€proceeding€is€basic€to€our€judicial€system,€andÏwe€agree€with€the€trial€judge€that€from€the€plaintiffððs€best€perspective,€the€reductionÏin€the€July,€1992€statement€would€not€have€affected€the€plaintiffððs€decision€to€acceptÏPCCððs€offer€and€was€thus€immaterial.Ìà ` àThe€appellant€does€not€respond€to€the€argument€of€the€appellee€that€he€cannotÏprevail€for€yet€another€reason:€that€fraud€cannot€be€based€on€erroneous€projectionsÏand€representations€as€to€the€future€success€of€a€business€or€corporation.€€ThisÏprinciple€was€alluded€to€in€òòWaring€v.€Polymer€Materials,€Inc.,€óó1997€ñMñœñMñWL32736ñMñ›ñMñ,Ð P1 ,* ÐTenn.€App.€1997,€citing€òòñMñœñMñZarñMñ›ñMñ€v.€Omni€Industries,€óó813€F.ñMñœñMñ2dñMñ›ñMñ€689€(ñMñœñMñ5thñMñ›ñMñ€Cir.€1987),€òòSharpÐ p3À., Ðv.€Idaho€Invest.€Corp.,€óó504€P.ñMñœñMñ2dñMñ›ñMñ€386€(Idaho€1972),€òòñMñœñMñDorrñMñ›ñMñ€v.€ñMñœñMñJanssenñMñ›ñMñ,€óó378€P.ñMñœñMñ2dñMñ›ñMñ€999Ð 5à0. Ð(Oregon€1963)€and€òòEvans€v.€Gray,€óó215€S.ñMñœñMñ2dñMñ›ñMñ€40€(ñNñœñNñFla.ñOñ€ñOññPñ›ñPñApp.€1968).€€The€recordÐ °730 Ðreflects€no€evidence€that€PCC€ever€represented€the€over/under€statement€to€be€moreÐ Ð9 52 Ðthan€a€mere€projection€of€profit.€€A€projection€is€simply€an€informed€estimate,€butÏwe€are€not€disposed€to€hold€that,€as€an€absolute,€fraud€cannot€be€based€on€incorrectÏprojections.€€In€the€case€at€Bar,€however,€the€principle€announced€in€òòWaringóó€isÐ ð@ ÐñPñœñPñappropoñPñ›ñPñ€in€light€of€the€testimony€of€the€plaintiff.Ìà ` àThe€trial€judge€ruled€that€the€ñPññ9ñplaintifñ9ññPññPñplaintiffñPñ€was€not€entitled€to€recover€becauseÏthere€was€no€proof€of€a€material€misrepresentation€in€projected€profits€for€1992€andÏno€proof€of€profits€for€1993€and€1994.€€The€only€proof€offered€concerned€theÏRockfish€project,€which,€had€it€not€lost€a€million€dollars€plus,€would€have€shownÏprofit€for€1993.€€But€the€plaintiff€admitted€that€he€had€no€idea€of€the€profits€for€theÏyears€in€question,€and,€as€found€by€the€trial€judge,€ð ðthere€is€no€proof€in€the€recordÏas€to€what,€if€any,€profits€PCC€had€in€those€three€years.ððÌœñcñÌñcñ›œñcñÌñcñ›à ` àThe€judgment€is€affirmed€at€the€costs€of€the€appellant.ÌÓÓà ` àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€Judge€