WPCLT  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7^7 0J\88# 9 0@: D3:w@; 0JF; 1m; 0c; 0T`< 0^< 0h= 0rz= 0|= 0h> 0> 1u~? 0d?U6W@B)@DC@ AM@U*FApA2BCE 0wpF 0F 0qG 0H 0H 0I 0gJv~VKvL AORR 0DS D/T B/TV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   d^!$(G.2$ FT!   XX     0  MARVINBERKELESLIEMcWILLIAMS($   0  H.B.H.QuitmanCatesHowell B.R.BankrtcyJaffeAssn 6thMashburnThorntonCardwellHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,hh,,,0nLl("$    GGGG'dxd  Pc{EEU{Ӏ2 0Indent123  Ztuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s$2,  0  .3  0  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  W[\]_`ab ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 dllll7Border 1ddPmC << G<  9p`(Arial  F!  #d#k  oo   YYY FILEDoX February25,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.oAppellateCourtClerk  ( F!#d#k  I$k         ItappearsthatMr.Catesistheonlypartyinthiscase,andoperatesindividuallyratherthanasapartnership.  F!#d#k  I$k         Thetranscriptshowsthattheword"contract"wasusedinthecharge.However,itappearsmostlikely,inaccordancewiththeCivilPatternJuryInstruction10.36,theword"contrary"wasused.Inanyevent,thePlaintiffraisesnoissuerelativetothisparticularcharge. F!#d#k  I$k         Visaisapolyestermaterial.(O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva PC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . k    7JdXXdd7\RA'\ `   RnpmA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTIONH.B.H.ENTERPRISES,INC.@ ) KNOXCOUNTY@ ) 03A019608CV00253 PlaintiffAppellant @ )@ )@ ) v. @ ) HON.DALEC.WORKMAN,@ ) JUDGÈ@ )  @ )QUITMANCATESandJOHNDOE@ )PARTNERS,Alld/b/aCATES@ ) MAINTENANCE  @ ) @ ) DefendantsAppellees@ ) AFFIRMEDANDREMANDEDJ.MYERSMORTONOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTPAULD.HOGAN,JR.,OFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLEES    OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  ThisisanappealfromajudgmententeredbytheCircuitCourtofKnoxCounty.ThePlaintiff,H.B.H.Enterprises,Inc.,soughtdamagesunderbreachofcontractandwarrantytheoriesarisingfromthesaleofusedlaundryequipmentbytheDefendantQuitmanCates. q   כTheDefendantfiledacountercomplaintseekinganawardforthePlaintiffsfailuretopayfortheequipmentthatisthesubjectofthissuit,aswellasotherequipmentsoldandservicesrendered.  AjurytrialwasheldonNovember30,1995.AttheconclusionofthePlaintiffscaseinchief,theCourtgrantedincameratheDefendant'smotionforadirectedverdictonthewarrantyissues.ThePlaintiffsbreachofcontractclaimandtheDefendant'scounterclaimproceededtoaconclusionbeforethejury,althoughtheTrialCourtdidnotinformthejuryofthedirectedverdictorinstructthemtodisregardanytestimonypertainingtowarranties.Thejuryreturneda$15,000verdictinfavoroftheDefendant.ThePlaintifffiledamotionfornewtrial,whichtheTrialCourtsubsequentlydenied.  ThePlaintiffisacorporationwhichhasbeenoperatingadrycleaningandlaundrybusinesssince1989.In1993thePlaintiffsprincipalownerandpresident,BartHowell,expandedthebusinessbycontractingtoironlinennapkinsandtableclothsforarestaurantsupplier.ThePlaintiffdidnothavetheproperequipmenttoperformthenewcontract,sothePlaintiffsoughttopurchaseequipmentfromseveralsources,includingtheDefendant.TheDefendantinformedMr.Howellthathehadtwoindustrialironersforsale,arebuiltironerforapproximately$15,000,andausedanddisassembledironerfor$1000,plus$4000fordeliveryandsetup.AlthoughMr.Howellknewthatthelatterironerhadbeeninafire,hepurchasedthedisassembledironer.  TheDefendantandhisrepresentativesinstalledtheironeratthePlaintiffsfacility.ThePlaintiffwasresponsibleforconnectingtheplumbingandelectricitytotheironer,butthisworkwasnotcompletedwhiletheDefendantsrepresentativeswereinstallingtheironer.Althoughtheironerworkedforapproximatelyeightmonths,itdidnotworkaswellasthePlaintiffhadexpectedandwassubjecttomanyproblemswhichaffectedthequalityandproductionrateoftheironer.However,thePlaintiffwasabletousethatironerandanothertoperformthelinencontract.Thecontractresultedin$92,181.93insales,$79,117.74inexpenses,and$13,064.19inprofitforthePlaintiff.Afterthisperiod,thePlaintiffsoldtheironerfor$6500.ThePlaintiffneverpaidtheDefendantfortheironer.  AlthoughtheTrialCourtdirectedaverdictagainstthewarrantyclaimsbythePlaintiff,theCourtdidnotadvisethejurythatithaddoneso.TheTrialCourtsinstructionspermittedthejurytofindforthePlaintiffifthejuryfoundeitherabreachofcontractorabreachofanywarrantybytheseller.TheTrialCourtalsodefinedacalculationforassessingdamagesifeitherabreachofcontractorwarrantywerefound.Additionally,theTrialCourtinstructedthejuryaboutexclusionofimpliedandexpresswarranties,includingan"asis"instruction:       Thebuyerandsellermayagreethattherebenoexpressedwarrantiesrelatingtothegoods,ortheymayagreethatonlycertainwarrantiesshallapply,andallothersexcluded. Ifsuchanagreementhasbeenmade,therecanbenoexpressedwarrantycontract r   כtoitsterms.Unlessthecircumstancesindicateotherwise,allimpliedwarrantiesareexcludedbyanexpressionlike"asis",or"withoutfaults",orotherlanguagewhichincommonunderstandingcallstoabuyersattentiontheexclusionofwarranties,andmakesitplainthattherearenoimpliedwarranties.       However,theTrialCourtdidnotdefineforthejurythemeaningofimpliedorexpresswarranties.̜Ǜ  ThePlaintiffpresentsthefollowingissueonappeal:        DidtheCourtcommiterrorindirectingaverdictdismissingplaintiffswarrantyclaimswhichclearlyaffectedthejudgmentinthiscase.         Inadditiontothedirectedverdictissue,theDefendantpresentedthefollowingissueonappeal:        Thetrialcourtdidnoterrbyinstructingthejuryastodisclaimersofwarrantiesbecauseevidencesupportingsuchinstructionexistsintherecord.Alternatively,ifthetrialcourterredininstructingthejuryastodisclaimersofwarranties,sucherrorwasharmless.         ThePlaintiffswarrantyclaimsincludedbreachofexpresswarranties,impliedwarrantyofmerchantability,andimpliedwarrantyoffitnessforaparticularpurpose.BecausewereachthiscaseonthePlaintiffsappealfromadirectedverdict,wemusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthePlaintiff.ThisCourtmustupholdthedecisionoftheTrialCourtonlyifreasonablemindscouldnotdiffer.Eatonv.McLain,891S.W.2d587(Tenn.1994).  ThePlaintiffsargumentisessentiallytwofold.First,thePlaintiffassertsthatthedirectedverdictitselfwasinerror.Second,althoughnotformallyraised,thePlaintiffarguesthattheTrialCourts"asis"instructionwasinerrorsincenoevidenceexistedshowingthattheironerwassold"asis."   Expresswarrantiesinvolveaffirmationsoffactordescriptionsbythesellerassuringthebuyerthatthegoodsinquestionwillmeetorconformtocertainstandardsorspecifications.ThePlaintiffcontendsthattheDefendantexpresslywarrantiedtheironertoMr.HowellafterMr.HowelltoldtheDefendanthewouldbeusingtheironertoprocesspolyesternapkinsforathirdpartycontract.  AbreachofanexpresswarrantybydescriptionunderT.C.A.472313(1)(b)canarisewhenasellersincorrectdescriptionofthegoodsinducesthebuyertopurchasethosegoods.InreJacksonTelevision,Ltd.,121B.R.790(Bankrtcy.E.D.Tenn.1990).Toassertaprimafaciecasethatanexpresswarrantyexistedandwasbreached,aplaintiffmustdemonstratethatthesellermadeanaffirmationoffactwhichhasatendencytoinducethebuyertopurchasethegoods,thatthebuyerwasinducedbythesellersacts,andthattheaffirmationoffactwasfalseregardlessofthesellersknowledgeofthefalsityorintentiontocreateawarranty.SeeStandardStevedoringCo.v.Jaffe,42Tenn.App.378,302S.W.2d829(1956).Examplesofexpresswarrantiesincludeasellerrepresentingthatitsokraseedswereofaparticularvarietywhentheywerenot,AgriculturalServices.Assnv.FerryMorseSeedCo.,551F.2d1057(6thCir.1977);aselleradvertisingthatitscranecouldlift1520tonswhenitwasactuallya10toncrane,StandardStevedoringCo.v.Jaffe,supra;andasellerrepresentingthatacarwasnewwheninactualityitwasused,Mashburnv.Thornton,35Tenn.App.216,244S.W.2d173(1951).  However,"anaffirmationmerelyofthevalueofthegoodsorastatementpurportingtobemerelythesellersopinionorcommendationofthegoodsdoesnotcreateawarranty."T.C.A.472313(2).Thus,"somestatementsorpredictionscannotfairlybeviewedasenteringintothebargain."T.C.A.472313(2),atComment8.Courtsarereluctanttofindanexpresswarrantywherethebuyerknewoftheconditionofthepropertybeforethepurchase.InreJacksonTelevision,Ltd.,supra.ThePlaintiffreliesonthefollowingstatementsmadebyitspresident,Mr.Howell,duringdirectexaminationtoestablishtheexistenceofanexpresswarranty:"heconvincedmethatthisfourrollwoulddothevisa; s   כbecauseitwasntcottonnapkins,anditwouldberealeasyforthistodoit.SoIboughtit."  ThisgeneralstatementisthetypeaddressedbySection472313(2)anddoesnotrisetothelevelofanexpresswarranty.ThePlaintiffhastheburdenofestablishingthatthestatementwasfalse.However,thePlaintiffisunabletomeetthisburdensincethePlaintifftookpossessionofandusedtheironerfornearlyeightmonthstogenerate$92,000worthofsales.AssumingthattheDefendantdidwarrantthattheironerwouldbefunctional,thefactthattheironerwasoperationaldefeatsthePlaintiffsexpresswarrantyclaimsincethePlaintiffwouldbeunabletodemonstratethattheDefendantsaffirmationoffactwasfalse.Furthermore,thefactthatthePlaintiffwaswellawareoftheconditionoftheironerbeforepurchasingtheironermilitatesagainstanyreliancebythePlaintiffontheDefendantsaffirmationsoffact.BecausethePlaintiffwasunableafterpresentingitscasetoestablishtheelementsnecessarytomaintainaprimafaciecaseforabreachofanexpresswarranty,theTrialCourtdidnoterringrantingtheDefendantsmotionforadirectedverdictonthisissue.  ThePlaintiffalsoassertsthattheTrialCourterredbydirectingaverdictagainstitsclaimsforbreachoftheimpliedwarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforaparticularpurposeunderT.C.A.472314and472315.However,forsecondhandgoods,liabilityundertheimpliedwarrantyofmerchantabilityislimited.T.C.A.472314,Comment3.Additionally,Section472316(3)(b)providesforexclusionofimpliedwarrantieswherethebuyerhasinspectedtheproductsorrefusedtodosoandthedefectsshouldhavebeenapparentuponsuchanexamination.Comment8totheOfficialTextofSection472316states:       "Examination"asusedinthisparagraphisnotsynonymouswithinspectionbeforeacceptanceoratanyothertimeafterthecontracthasbeenmade.Itgoesrathertothenatureoftheresponsibilityassumedbytheselleratthetimeofthemakingofthecontract.Ofcourseifthebuyerdiscoversthedefectandusesthegoodsanyway,orifheunreasonablyfailstoexaminethegoodsbeforeheusesthem,resultinginjuriesmaybefoundtoresultfromhisownactionratherthanproximatelyfromabreachofwarranty..... ...Aprofessionalbuyerexaminingaproductinhisfieldwillbeheldtohaveassumedtheriskastoalldefectswhichaprofessionalinhisfieldoughttoobserve....         Tennesseecourtshaveheldthatimpliedwarrantiesdonotexistwhere"defectsinthesameareknowntothebuyer,orhehasknowledgeoffactssufficienttoputhimoninquiryortochargehimwithnotice.Nosuchwarrantywillbeimpliedwherethesellerstatesenoughtoputoneofordinaryintelligenceonnotice."Cardwellv.Hackett,579S.W.2d186(Tenn.App.1978).Thisisnotacasewherethesellerwithheldthedamagedconditionofthegoodsbeingsoldtothebuyer.Tothecontrary,thePlaintiff'sPresident,Mr.Howell,acknowledgesthathewassoinformed.BecausetheDefendantstatedenoughabouttheconditionoftheironertoputanordinaryperson,especiallyaprofessionalinthelaundrybusiness,onnotice,noimpliedwarrantycouldhaveexisted.Therefore,theTrialCourtwasnotinerrortodirectaverdictontheissueofimpliedwarranties.  Inconclusion,wenotethatthePlaintiffhadafullplenaryhearingbeforeajuryastoitsbreachofcontractclaimandastothecounterclaimagainstitbyMr.Cates.Becauseheprevailedinneither,weconcludethateveniftheTrialCourtwasinerror,asassertedbythePlaintiff,theerrorwasharmlessascontemplatedbyRule36oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedforcollectionofcostsbelow.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstthePlaintiff,H.B.H.Enterprises,Inc.,anditssurety.Ӝ       ___________________________       HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.Concur:____________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.____________________________CliffordE.Sanders,Sp.J.