ÿWPC@ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU<Ýw@ 4Y m UP| Ì 0JÔ 0T 0^r 0hÐ 0r8 0|ª 0†& 0¬ 1u< U,± 0dÝ U,AU>mB)«DCÔ AMU*d BŽ,«v~×vÓU D3( 0@[ AO›Æê 0D° D/ô B#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman 0U12D34E56U7î8Ó€DyJÚ ÿÿ`äp 3|xD.æF)Z8NewCenturySchlbk Regular2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òJuly€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÑ7€ÅXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òEDWARD€G.€HUMPHREYS,€JR.,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Chancery€No.€102511„2ÌÙ€€ÙßL€#&";+'h|Ö` Å `€€LßVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.Ï02A01„9506„CH„00138ÌÌò òJAMES€ROBERT€HUMPHREYS€andÌDIANE€HUMPHREYS„BARLOWó ó,ÌÌà àDefendants„Appellants.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€FLOYD€PEETE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌà@ àGlen€G.€Reid,€Jr.,€and€Robert€A.€McLean€ofÌà@ àMcDonnell€Dyer,€Memphis,€For€AppelleeÌÌà@ àStephen€P.€Hale€and€Richard€R.€Roberts€of€Memphis€Ìà@ àFor€AppellantsÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óóóÌÌà@ àOpinion€filed:€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÌÌÓÓò òÑ7€ÅXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà àó óThis€is€a€suit€for€contribution.€€On€February€22,€1993,€Edward€G.ÏHumphreys,€Jr.,€€(hereinafter,€ð ðPlaintiffðð)€filed€a€complaint€in€theÏShelby€County€Chancery€Court€against€his€brother,€James€RobertÏHumphreys,€and€his€sister,€Diane€Humphreys„Barlow€(hereinafter,Ïð ðDefendantsðð),€to€recover€their€pro„rata€share€of€the€cost€and€expensesÏincurred€in€cleaning€up€fuel€contamination€on€real€property€thatÏPlaintiff€and€Defendants€had€owned€as€tenants„in„common€and€had€sold.€ÏFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€Defendants€wereÏliable€to€Plaintiff€for€their€pro„rata€share€of€the€total€expense€ofÍ$68,481.00,€including€ten€percent€interest,€that€Plaintiff€had€incurredÏto€remediate€the€contamination€on€the€property€in€question.€ÏSubsequently,€the€Chancellor€entered€an€amended€order€deleting€theÏinterest€included€in€the€total€expense,€thereby€reducing€the€totalÏexpense€to€$60,294.00.€€Plaintiff€was€awarded€judgment€for€defendantsÏpro€rata€share€in€the€amount€of€$40,196.00.€€Plaintiff€was€denied€pre„trial€interest.€€Defendants€have€appealed€and€present€the€followingÏissues€for€review:€€Ìà@ àò òISSUES€€ó óÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€Whether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€determiningÏliability€of€the€defendants€based€upon€theÏreasonableness€of€the€Plaintiffððs€action.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€Whether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€determiningÏthat€the€Plaintiff€and€Defendants€would€haveÏbeen€subject€to€liability€to€PlantationÏProperties.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€Whether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€determiningÏthat€the€Plaintiff€and€Defendants€would€haveÏbeen€subject€to€liability€to€the€State€ofÏTennessee.ÌÌà8 àPlaintiff€presents€the€following€issue:ÌÌà8 àà8 àWhether€the€Chancellor€abused€his€discretion€inÏrefusing€to€award€pre„judgment€interest€as€anÍÔ  Ôelement€of€damages.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌÌÓÓà àIn€May,€1986,€Plaintiff€and€Defendants€inherited€approximately€57Ïacres€of€property€at€the€intersection€of€Macon€Road€and€GermantownÏParkway€in€Shelby€County,€Tennessee.€€At€the€time€the€parties€becameÏthe€owners€of€the€property,€there€were€four€underground€petroleumÏstorage€tanks€on€the€property€that€had€been€used€to€refuel€theÏequipment€and€trucks€used€in€the€familyððs€farming€and€nurseryÏoperations.€€In€February,€1989,€the€parties€entered€into€a€real€estateÏsales€contract€to€sell€the€property€to€Glenbrook€Equities,€Inc.€€TheÏcontract€stated€in€relevant€part:ÌÓÓà8 à14.òò€Representations,€Warranties,€Covenants€and€AgreementsÏof€Seller.óó€ÌÔ€ ÔÌÔ€Ôà8 àà8 àA.€òòRepresentation€and€Warranties€of€Seller.óó€ForÏthe€purpose€of€inducing€Purchaser€to€enter€intoÏthis€Contract€and€to€consummate€the€sale€andÏpurchase€of€subject€property€in€accordanceÏherewith,€Seller€represents€and€warrants€toÏPurchaser€the€following€as€of€the€date€of€thisÏContract€and€as€of€the€Closing€Date...:ÌÌà@ à***ÌÔ€ Ôà8 àà8 àÔ€Ô(2)€That€there€is€no€condition€existing€withÏrespect€to€theÍà8 àà8 àsubject€property,€or€anyÏpart€thereof,€whichÏviolates€any€regulation,Ïdecree,€code,€ordinance,Ïrule€or€law€of€any€city,Ïcounty,€state€or€federalÏgovernment€orÏgovernmental€agency....ÌÔ€ ÔÌÔ€ Ôà8 àà8 àÔ€Ô(3)€that€Seller€has€not€received€notice€of€and€hasÏno€knowledge€or€information€of...any€natural€orÏartificial€condition€upon€or€affecting€theÏsubject€property€or€any€part€thereof,€any€ofÏwhich€would€result€in€any€material€change€in€theÏcondition€of€the€subject€property,€or€any€partÏthereof,€or€in€any€way€limit€or€impedeÏconstruction€of€the€improvements€to€beÏconstructed€on€the€subject€property.€Ìò òà àà àó óÌÓÓà àIn€March,€1989,€the€parties€decided€to€remove€the€fourÏunderground€fuel€tanks,€as€two€of€the€tanks€had€been€leaking.€€TheÏparties€wished€to€avoid€complications€that€might€arise€from€the€tanksÏhaving€been€on€the€property,€especially€since€two€producing€waterÏwells€were€in€close€proximity€to€the€leaking€tanks.€€Plaintiff€andÏDefendants€employed€E.F.€Williams,€an€environmental€engineer,€toÏsupervise€the€removal.€€Plaintiff,€himself,€removed€the€tanks€from€theÏproperty€on€March€20,€1989.€€Thereafter,€Williams€tested€the€soil€andÏfound€fuel€contamination.€€The€parties€attempted€to€remedy€theÍcontamination€by€removing€soil€and€allowing€it€to€aerate€beforeÏreplacing€it.€€Afterwards,€Williams€prepared€a€report€which€stated€thatÏthe€contamination€no€longer€represented€a€potential€source€forÏunderground€soil€contamination;€however,€unknown€to€the€parties€at€theÏtime,€some€contamination€did,€in€fact,€remain.€€Ìà àIn€June,€1989,€Glenbrook€Equities€assigned€the€real€estate€salesÏcontract€to€Plantation€Properties.€€Later€that€month,€Plaintiff€andÏDefendants€conveyed€the€property€to€Plantation€Properties€(hereinafter,Ïð ðPlantationðð)€for€consideration€of€$4.6€Million.€€Plantation€paidÏPlaintiff€and€Defendants€a€down€payment€of€$1€Million€with€theÏremaining€$3.6€Million€to€be€paid€pursuant€to€a€promissory€note€securedÏby€a€deed€of€trust.€€In€January,€1992,€Plantation€entered€into€a€contractÏto€sell€1.2€acres€of€the€property€to€Apple€South,€Inc.,€for€approximatelyÏ$460,000.€€Apple€South€intended€to€construct€and€operate€an€ApplebeeððsÏRestaurant€at€that€location.€€Apple€South€hired€Professional€ServiceÏIndustries,€Inc.,€(hereinafter€ð ðPSIðð)€to€perform€an€environmentalÏinvestigation€of€the€site.€€PSI€found€both€gasoline€and€diesel€fuelÏcontamination€in€the€area€where€one€of€the€underground€fuel€tanks€hadÏbeen€located.€€à àPSI€notified€the€Tennessee€Department€of€EnvironmentÍand€Conservation€regarding€the€contamination,€and€by€letter€dated€MayÏ7,€1992,€the€State€made€written€demand€upon€Plantation,€Plaintiff€andÏDefendants€to€eliminate€the€contamination.€€Plantation€urged€PlaintiffÏand€Defendants€to€remedy€the€condition€because€the€contaminationÏthreatened€the€viability€of€Plantationððs€contract€with€Apple€South,€andÏadverse€publicity€could€be€detrimental€to€Plantationððs€efforts€toÏdevelop€the€remaining€55€acres€of€the€property.€€PSI€performedÏadditional€tests€on€the€property,€some€of€which€were€observed€byÏPlaintiff.€€The€tests€indicated€contamination€at€the€bottom€of€one€ofÏthe€former€tank€pits€to€a€depth€of€33€feet€below€the€surface.€ÏSubsequent€testing€by€E.F.€Williams€indicated€that€contaminationÏextended€to€as€far€as€45€feet€below€the€surface.€€Ìà àPlaintiff€was€convinced€that€the€contamination€had€occurredÏduring€the€time€he€and€Defendants€had€owned€the€property,€and€he€wasÏconcerned€about€the€legal€exposure€he€and€Defendants€might€face€if€theÏcontamination€were€not€remedied.€€Thereafter,€Plaintiff€funded€andÏpersonally€undertook€to€clean€up€the€property€by€removing€and€replacingÏthe€contaminated€soil.€€Plaintiffððs€cleanup€efforts€were€successful€andÏmet€with€the€Stateððs€approval.€€After€the€contamination€had€beenÍeliminated€from€the€property,€Plantation€and€Apple€South€closed€theÏsale€of€the€property.€€Ìà àDefendants€refused€to€pay€Plaintiff€for€their€share€of€expensesÏincurred€in€eliminating€the€contamination.€€Plaintiff€filed€the€instantÏComplaint€on€February€22,€1993,€seeking€contribution€from€DefendantsÏfor€their€pro„rata€share€of€the€cost€of€the€cleanup€as€well€as€pre„judgment€interest.€€In€their€Answer,€Defendants€averred€that€they€wereÏnot€liable€for€contribution€because€neither€they€nor€Plaintiff€had€anyÏlegal€responsibility€or€liability€to€clean€up€or€to€eliminate€anyÏcontamination€on€the€property.€€Ìà àThis€action€for€contribution€was€tried€without€intervention€of€aÏjury,€and€the€trial€court€made€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÏof€law.€€€Rule€13(d)€T.R.A.P.€requires€this€Court€to€review€the€findingsÏof€fact€by€the€trial€court€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€findings.€€Unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise,€we€must€affirm€the€trialÏcourt€absent€error€of€law.€€Ìò òà@ àISSUES€1€AND€2:ó óÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òWhether€the€Chancellor€erred€inÍdetermining€liability€of€the€defendantsÏbased€upon€the€reasonableness€of€theÏPlaintiffððs€action.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àWhether€the€Chancellor€erred€inÏdetermining€that€the€Plaintiff€andÏDefendants€would€have€been€subject€toÏliability€to€Plantation€Properties.ó óÌÌÓÓà àThe€right€of€contribution€carries€with€it€the€requirement€of€aÏliability.€€The€right€to€recover€contribution€is€the€right€to€proceedÏagainst€persons€jointly€liable.€€Contribution€is€founded€upon€principlesÏof€equity€which€require€that€persons€under€a€common€liability€bear€it€inÏequal€proportions€and€that€one€not€bear€more€than€his€share.€€€€òòTRW„Title€Ins.€Co.€v.€Stewart€Title€Guar.€Co.óó,€832€Ô€ ÔS.W.2d€Ô€Ô344€(Tenn.€App.Ï1991)€appeal.€den.€(Tenn.€1992);€€òòFontenot€v.€Roachóó,€120€F.€Supp.€788Ï(E.D.€Tenn.€1954);€òòHuggins€v.€Gravesóó,€337€F.2d.€486€(6th€Cir.€1964).€€€€€€€€€Ìà àThe€right€to€contribution€arises€the€moment€that€one€co„obligorÏpays€more€than€his€share€of€a€common€liability.€€òòMoody€v.€Kirkpatrickóó,Ï234€F.Supp.€537,€541€(M.D.€Tenn.€1964).€€Therefore,€a€party€whoÏdischarges€a€common€obligation€for€his€own€protection€and€whichÏaction€enures€to€the€benefit€of€a€co„obligor€is€entitled€to€contribution.€ÏTo€entitle€one€to€contribution,€the€payment€must€be€compulsory€in€theÍsense€that€the€party€was€under€an€obligation€to€pay.€€òòTRW„Title€Ins.ÏCo.óó,832€Ô€ ÔS.W.2d€Ô€Ôat€346.€€However,€it€is€not€necessary€that€a€suit€beÏinstituted€or€that€a€judgment€be€rendered€against€the€person€seekingÏcontribution.€€òòHuggins€v.€Gravesóó,€337€F.€2d€486,€487€(6th€Cir.€1964);€ÏSee€also,€òòMcLochlin€v.€Milleróó,€217€N.E.2d€50€(Ind.€Ct.App.€1966);ÏòòConsolidated€Coach€Corp.€v.€Burgeóó,€54€Ô€ ÔS.W.2d€Ô€Ô16€(Ky.€Ct.€App.€1932).€ÏTherefore,€a€party€need€not€wait€until€he€and€a€co„obligor€are€sued€inÏorder€to€seek€contribution€for€remedial€action€taken.€€Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€neither€the€State€of€Tennessee€nor€PlantationÏsued€Plaintiff€or€Defendants€or€obtained€a€judgment€against€them.€€TheÏexistence€of€liability€must€be€proved€by€other€means.€€In€òòTerminalÏTransport€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Cliffside€Leasing€Corp.óó,€577€S.W.2d€Ô€ Ô455,€458€Ô€Ô(Tenn.Ï1979),€the€Supreme€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]he€question€of€the€existence€of€liability€mustÏbe€answered€by€probabilities€as€they€existed€atÏthe€time€of€settlement,€not€by€considerationÏalone€of€the€legal€effect€of€facts.€€citing,ÏÔ€ ÔòòTankrederiet€Gefion€A/S€v.€Hyman„MichaelsÏCompanyóó,€406€F.2d€1039€(6th€Cir.€1969).ÌÌÓÓÔ€ÔIn€òòTerminal€Transportóó,€our€Supreme€Court€relied€upon€òòWisconsin€BargeÏLine,€Inc.,€v.€Barge€Chem€300óó,€546€F.2d€1125€(5th€Cir.€1977).€€In€thatÍcase,€€a€barge€owner€was€sued€for€injuries€sustained€by€an€employee€inÏa€barge€collision.€€After€the€barge€owner€settled€the€lawsuit,€it€soughtÏindemnity€from€another€party.€€The€Court€of€Appeals,€reversing€theÏDistrict€Court,€held€that€the€barge€owner€need€not€go€to€trial€and€loseÏin€order€to€establish€that€it€was€compelled€to€pay€the€employee€for€hisÏinjuries.€€Specifically,€the€Court€of€Appeals€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€is€enough€if€the€proof€shows€the€existence€ofÏa€reasonable€and€good€faith€belief€in€liability...Ïand€that€the€settlement€was€made€in€good€faithÏand€for€a€reasonable€amount€under€theÏcircumstances.€€òòÔ€ ÔWisconsin€Barge€Line,€Inc.,€v.ÏBarge€Chem€300óó,€546€F.2d€1125,€1128€(5th€Cir.Ï1977)Ô€Ô,€citing€òòWest€Coast€Terminals€Co.,€of€Cal.Ïv.€Luckenbach€Steamship€Co.óó,€349€F.2d€568,€570Ï(9th€Cir.€1965).ÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€Chancellor€found€that€it€was€reasonableÏfor€Plaintiff€to€perceive€and€conclude€that€he€and€Defendants€wereÏliable€both€to€Plantation€and€to€the€State€of€Tennessee€for€theÏcontamination€that€had€occurred€during€the€time€he€and€DefendantsÏowned€the€property.€€We€find€no€error€in€this€determination.€€PlaintiffÏasserts€and€we€agree€that€a€common€liability€on€the€part€of€defendantsÏcould€be€premised€on€several€theories.€€For€example,€the€real€esateÏcontract€for€the€sale€of€the€property€contained€representations€andÍwarranties€regarding€the€condition€of€the€property€stating€in€relevantÏpart:Ìà8 à14.òò€Representations,€Warranties,€Covenants€and€AgreementsÏof€Seller.óó€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA.€òòRepresentation€and€Warranties€of€Seller.óó€€à8 àÌà8 àà8 àFor€the€purpose€of€inducing€Purchaser€to€enterÏinto€this€Contract€and€to€consummate€the€saleÏand€purchase€of€subject€property€in€accordanceÏherewith,€Seller€represents€and€warrants€toÏPurchaser€the€following€as€of€the€date€of€thisÏContract€and€as€of€the€Closing€Date...:ÌÌà@ à***ÌÔ€ Ôà8 àà8 àÔ€Ô(2)€That€there€is€no€condition€existing€withÏrespect€to€theÏà8 àà8 àsubject€property,€or€anyÏpart€thereof,€whichÏviolates€any€regulation,Ïdecree,€code,€ordinance,Ïrule€or€law€of€any€city,Ïcounty,€state€or€federalÏgovernment€orÏgovernmental€agency....ÌÌÔ€ Ôà8 àà8 àÔ€Ô(3)€that€Seller€has€not€received€notice€of€and€hasÏno€knowledge€or€information€of...any€natural€orÏartificial€condition€upon€or€affecting€theÏsubject€property€or€any€part€thereof,€any€ofÏwhich€would€result€in€any€material€change€in€theÏcondition€of€the€subject€property,€or€any€partÏthereof,€or€in€any€way€limit€or€impedeÏconstruction€of€the€improvements€to€beÍconstructed€on€the€subject€property.€Ìò òà àà àó óÌÓÓIn€June,€1989,€Glenbrook€assigned€the€contract€to€PlantationÏProperties,€and€the€Plaintiff€and€Defendants€conveyed€the€property€toÏPlantation€on€June€13,€1989.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€warrantiesÏand€representations€made€by€the€parties€were€binding€upon€them€andÏrelied€upon€by€Plantation.€€Paragraph€14(C)€of€the€contract€explicitlyÏprovides€for€the€continuation€of€the€warranties€and€representations:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àC.€òòSurvival€of€Representations€and€Warrantiesóó.€ÏThe€representations€and€warranties€of€Seller€setÏforth€herein€shall€be€continuing€and€shallÏsurvive€the€Closing€and€shall€not€be€merged€intoÏthe€Closing€documents.€€ÌÌÓÓà àThe€contract€appears€clear€and€unambiguous.€€Contrary€toÏDefendantsðð€assertions,€we€do€not€find€there€to€be€a€conflict€betweenÏparagraphs€6€and€14€of€the€real€estate€sales€contract.€€Paragraph€14€isÏa€warranty€from€the€sellers€that€no€condition€existed€on€the€property€inÏviolation€of€any€law.€€Paragraph€6€gives€the€purchaser€the€right€toÏconduct€tests€upon€the€property€and€to€delay€closure,€if€necessary.€€TheÏtwo€clauses€are€not€mutually€exclusive€nor€does€one€control€over€theÏother.€€Rather,€they€are€unambiguous€and€work€in€concert.€€Courts€shouldÏinterpret€a€contract€in€such€a€way€as€to€give€effect€to€all€terms€andÍconditions.€€òòRainey€v.€Stansellóó,€836€Ô€ ÔS.W.2d€Ô€Ô117€(Tenn.€App.€1992)(AllÏprovisions€of€a€contract€should€be€construed€as€in€harmony€with€eachÏother,€if€such€construction€can€be€reasonably€made).€€See€also,€òòParkÏPlace€Center€Enterprises,€Inc.€v.€Park€Place€Mall€Assocs.€L.P.óó,€836ÏÔ€ ÔS.W.2d€Ô€Ô113€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Ìà àPlaintiff€and€Defendant€warranted€and€represented€to€PlantationÏthat€there€existed€no€condition€on€the€property€that€violated€any€law.€ÏTÔ€ Ôhe€warranties€and€representations€survived€the€sale€of€the€property.€ÏÔ€ÔBecause€there€is€no€dispute€that€the€property€was€contaminated€when€itÏwas€sold,€the€Chancellor€was€correct€in€finding€that€Plaintiff€andÏDefendants€faced€liability€for€breach€of€warranty.€€Ìà àThe€Chancellor€held€that€Plaintiff€and€Defendants€would€have€beenÏsubject€to€an€enforcement€action€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€forÏenvironmental€contamination€for€an€unlawful€discharge€of€pollutantsÏunder€the€Tennessee€Water€Quality€Control€Act.€€Based€on€the€testimonyÏof€witnesses€for€both€Plaintiff€and€Defendants,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€contamination€that€existed€on€the€property€at€the€time€ofÏclosing€was€likely€to€move€into€the€groundwater€thereby€providing€theÏState€with€the€right€to€undertake€an€enforcement€action.€€Ìà àDefendants€insist€that€the€State€had€no€power€to€require€that€theyÏand€Plaintiff€clean€up€the€contaminated€property€because€neither€theÏTennessee€Petroleum€Underground€Storage€Act€(hereinafter,€ð ðTPUSAðð),ÏÔ€ ÔT.C.A.ððÔ€Ô€68„215„101€(1988)€òòetóó€òòseq.óó,€nor€the€Tennessee€Water€QualityÏControl€Act€(hereinafter,€ð ðTWQCAðð),€Ô€ ÔT.C.A.ððÔ€Ô€69„3„101€(1977),€òòetóó€òòseq.óó,Ïapply€either€to€the€tanks€in€question€or€to€the€resulting€condition€on€theÏproperty.€€Ìà àThe€TPUSA€provides€that€ð ð...all€releases€of€petroleum€orÏpetroleum€products€from€petroleum€underground€storage€tanks€shall€beÏsolely€and€exclusively€regulated...ðð€under€the€TPUSA.€€Ô€ ÔT.C.A.ððÔ€Ô€68„215„127€(1988).€€The€TPUSA,€by€its€own€terms,€exempts€from€exclusiveÏregulation€ð ð[F]arm€or€residential€tanks€of€one€thousand€one€hundredÏ(1,100)€gallons€or€less€used€for€storing€motor€fuel€for€noncommercialÏpurposes...ðð€€Ô€ ÔT.C.A.ððÔ€Ô€68„215„124(2)€(1988).€€While€the€four€tanks€thatÏwere€located€on€the€property€are€specifically€exempted€from€exclusiveÏregulation€by€the€TPUSA€because€each€had€a€capacity€less€than€1,100Ïgallons,€this€does€not€mean€that€they€are€not€subject€to€regulation.€ÏLeakage€and€concomitant€contamination€therefrom€cannot€be€permittedÏto€occur€unchecked.€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Department€of€Environment€and€ConservationÏinformed€the€parties€that€they€were€in€violation€of€the€TWQCA.€€AfterÏreviewing€the€data€and€observing€additional€tests,€Plaintiff,€too,Ïconcluded€that€he€and€Defendants€were€in€violation€of€the€TWQCA.€€ThatÏAct€states€in€relevant€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(b)€It€is€unlawful€for€any€person...to€carry€outÏany€of€the€following€activities...:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€The€discharge€of€sewage,€industrial€wastesÏor€other€wastes€into€waters,€or€a€location€fromÏwhich€it€is€òòlikely€that€the€discharged€substanceÏwill€move€into€watersóó;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€The€discharge€of€sewage,€industrial€wastes,Ïor€other€wastes€into€a€well€or€a€location€that€isÏòòlikely€that€the€discharged€substance€will€moveÏinto€a€wellóó,€or€the€underground€placement€ofÏfluids€and€other€substances€which€do€or€mayÏaffect€the€waters€of€the€state...Ìà àà àÔ€ ÔT.C.A.ððÔ€Ô€69„3„108(b)(6)€and€(7)€(1993)(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌÓÓThe€term€ð ðother€wastesðð€has€been€defined€by€the€Act€to€include€oil€andÏpetroleum€byproducts€such€as€diesel€and€gasoline€which€had€been€storedÏwithin€the€tanks€in€question.€€Ô€ ÔT.C.A.ððÔ€Ô€69„3„103(18)(1992).€€UnrebuttedÏtestimony€established€that€the€contamination€was€ð ðlikelyðð€to€moveÏinto€the€groundwater€and€neighboring€wells.€€Glen€Birdwell€of€theÍTennessee€Department€of€Environment€and€Conservation€who€was€one€ofÏPlaintiffððs€witnesses€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àòòò òDIRECT€EXAMINATION:ó óóó€€Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€Now,€one€last€question.€€Why€was€the€State€ofÏTennessee€concerned€with€the€site€under€theÏTennessee€Water€Quality€Control€Act?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€Because€of€the€amount,€well,€theÏcontamination€that€was€present€€in€the€ground.€ÏParticularly€the€I€think€it€is€almost€3,000€partsÏper€million€TPH€at,€what,€33€feet€below€theÏsurface€of€the€soil,€the€potential€for€theÏcontamination€of€the€groundwaters€of€the€StateÏwas€there€and€that€was€the€thrust.€€€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€And€you€said€potential.€€Will€you€explain€to€theÏcourt€what€you€mean€by€potential?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€The€potential€or€the€likelihood€of€threat€ofÏwater€to€the€State....€€ÌÌà@ à*€*€*à àà àÌÌà àà àòòò òCROSS€EXAMINATION:ó óóóÌà8 àà8 àQ.€Now,€when€you€said€potential,€essentially€toÏyou€when€you€used€that€term€that€means€mightÏget€to€the€waters,€is€that€what€you€are€saying?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€Yes,€might,€likely,€potential.ÌÌà@ à*€*€*ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€And€it€is€your€testimony€that€it€is€moreÏprobable€than€not€that€it€will€reach€theÍgroundwater.ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€It€is€likely€and€probable€that€it€could€reachÏthe€groundwater.€€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€Ben€Brantley,€Plaintiffððs€witness,€testified€on€cross„examination:ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€Is€that€more€probable€or€less€probable€thanÏnot?€€You€canððt€say,€can€you?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€Well,€in€all€likelihood€if€that€contaminationÏremained€in€place,€groundwater€would€eventuallyÏbe€adversely€affected.€€I€can€say€that.€€ÌÌÓÓEd€Williams,€Defendantsðð€own€expert,€testified€that€it€was€likely€thatÏthe€Ìgroundwater€would€be€contaminated€within€one€year.€€(TE.€218„19).€ÏDefendants€introduced€no€proof€to€rebut€Plaintiffððs€position€that€theÏgroundwater€eventually€would€be€contaminated€by€the€fuel€that€hadÏleaked€from€the€tanks.€€Consequently,€we€find€no€error€in€theÏChancellorððs€finding€that€it€was€likely€that€groundwater€contaminationÏwould€occur.€€à àÌà àDefendants€assert€that€the€contamination€is€not€addressed€by€theÏTWQCA€because€the€TWQCA€specifically€exempts€ð ð...any€agricultural€orÏforestry€activity€or€the€activities€necessary€to€the€conduct€andÍoperations€thereof€or€to€any€lands€devoted€to€the€production€of€anyÏagricultural€or€forestry€products€unless€there€is€a€point€sourceÏdischarge€from€a€discernable,€confined,€and€discrete€waterÏconveyance.ðð€€See,€Ô€ ÔT.C.A.ððÔ€Ô€69„3„120(g)€(1992).€€The€T.W.Q.C.A.€does€notÏdefine€ð ðpoint€source€dischargeðð€or€ð ða€discernable,€confined,€andÏdiscrete€water€conveyance.ðð€€However,€the€TWQCA€is€the€stateÏequivalent€of€the€Federal€Water€Pollution€Control€Act€(hereinafter,Ïð ðFWPCAðð),€33€U.S.C.€ðð€1361€(1987),€òòetóó€òòseqóó.€€The€purpose€of€the€TWQCAÏis€ð ð...to€enable€the€state€to€qualify€for€full€participation€in€the€naturalÏpollutant€discharge€elimination€system€established€under...the€FederalÏWater€Pollution€Control€Act.€.€.€.ðð€€T.C.A.ðð€69„3„102(c)€(1992).€€TheÏFWPCA€defines€a€ð ðpoint€sourceðð€as:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à...€any€discernable,€confined€and€discreteÏconveyance,€including€but€not€limited€to€anyÏpipe,€ditch,€channel,€tunnel,€conduit,€well,Ïdiscrete€fissure,€container...€from€Ìà8 àà8 àwhich€pollutants€are€or€may€be€discharged.€.€.€.€Ï33€U.S.C.€ðð€1362(14)€(1988).€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àAs€one€federal€court€noted€in€òòOððLeary€v.€Moyerððs€Landfill,€Inc.óó,€523ÏF.€Supp.€642,€655€(E.D.€Pa.€1981):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€essence€of€a€point€source€discharge€is€thatÏit€be€from€a€ððdiscernable,€confined,€and€discreteÍconveyanceðð...€Contrary€to€defendantsððÏassertions,€this€has€nothing€to€do€with€theÏintent€of€the€operators€or€the€reasonableness€ofÏthe€existing€collection€system.€€See€generally,ÏòòSierra€Club€v.€Abston€Construction€Co.óó,€620€F.2dÏ41,€45„46€(5th€Cir.€1980).€€Notwithstanding€thatÏit€may€result€from€such€natural€phenomena€asÏrainfall€and€gravity,€the€surface€run„off€ofÏcontaminated€waters,€once€channeled€orÏcollected,€constitutes€discharge€by€a€pointÏsource.€€òòSierra€Clubóó,€620€F.2d€at€47.€ÌÌÓÓIn€this€case,€there€is€no€dispute€that€the€underground€tanks€wereÏleaking€into€the€soil.€€Further,€the€unrebutted€testimony€establishedÏthat€the€fuel€contaminate€was€migrating€downward€toward€theÏgroundwater.€€We€find€that€the€leaking€tanks€were€point€sources€for€theÏsoil€contamination.€€Accordingly,€we€do€not€find€that€the€ChancellorÏerred€in€concluding€that€the€State€of€Tennessee€had€the€authority€toÏcompel€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€to€clean€up€the€contamination€under€theÏTWQCA.€€For€all€of€the€above€reasons€the€trial€court€correctly€held€thatÏplaintiff€is€entitled€to€contribution€from€defendants.Ìà@ àò òPLAINTIFFððS€ISSUE€„€PRE„JUDGMENT€INTERESTó óÌà àBy€Amended€Order€entered€April€26,€1995,€the€Chancellor€deniedÏPlaintiffððs€prayer€for€pre„judgment€interest.€€Ô€ ÔT.C.A.ððÔ€Ô€47„14„123(1979)Ïprovides€in€relevant€part,€ð ð[P]re„judgment€interest,€i.e.€interest€as€anÍelement€of,€or€in€the€nature€of,€damages€...may€be€awarded€by€courts€orÏjuries€in€accordance€with€the€principles€of€equity€at€any€rate€not€inÏexcess€of€...ten€percent€(10%)€per€annum....ðð€€The€award€of€prejudgmentÏinterest€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€sole€discretion.€€Ô€ ÔòòKirksey€v.€OvertonÏPub.€Inc.óó,€804€Ô€ ÔS.W.2d€Ô€ Ô68€(Tenn.€App.€1990).Ô€Ô€€In€this€instance,€the€trialÏcourt€elected€not€to€award€Plaintiff€pre„judgment€interest.€€The€trialÏcourtððs€decision€regarding€pre„judgment€interest€should€not€beÏdisturbed€upon€appellate€review€unless€the€record€reveals€a€ð ðmanifestÏand€palpable€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,Ï850€Ô€ ÔS.W.2d€Ô€Ô439,€446€(Tenn.€1992).€€Upon€examination€of€the€record,€weÏdo€not€find€such€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€theÏcase€is€remanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€necessary.€€Costs€ofÏappeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellants.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÔ€ÔÔ€Ôœ