ÿWPC© òiFVg>㺓¶4#~ü,FL/†W3¸"ryKaöÁ±3¬‘ð9ª µ¼½È@tP:“‰y% B††éÂ2>‰mò—;¹w°Ã® ˜¸8?/k·¨31$¿ç ¢Âˆ3ŽNÄÈ¡X ªÓ&€;s‘:XƒáS›.øÊ~2 %Y×ýi*Õc o¾mÍE01„6¯õ$ɹä87ŠT¢æŠKwôG+X9Rœ周³ý1å·æøTÿª,:Þ•2Ð(É%«DCucš}7ÊãSJ¯’Þ’ß«÷q]˜¦¢j1SÒ™n|#´´e^ØWÕµO$"dú½Q¹³j¶I¿yKqdýÁŒú©ÞÊ4½oÜT¤JåZPÊ¿%ˆ²8” âDŠP_w  ©UØpdi1ü¼µÒcùG8wl=ŒØ©jy³Þ·Â͉f€ÇÂÛ5IÀEß±Ü&¥§ orgyÞä©lÔ»NÙ¸ïƒÃ§š‘’Ê2q•/[nj@!a¬&Ræ-ÐÃöãÐ…íCT×ô[)Ö¢Õ²pÁÙÒ\çœ1Õ JWѼ°“Kçþõ“|~~¡é …/ÚHù?ÚZÀRª¤yœ¤ 3_E#ÄÝ"Çðñ¥µK#w …)# >UNI %— 0cU<w@<4| AQŸ 0§ð 0D—ÃÛ0ž Î -Ö  U: üA =U:AAAAAAAAAAA B{Ƙ 0D^ 0D¢ 0Dææ D/** BY D3v˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6HPBXLBÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman -E.D/U0î12H34Ó€>An~<$ŒÀÜ3|xA !" %Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(W(3Îö$¤¤Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X"XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó ¹Ý ƒ Ñ&$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡XdzXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€note€that€although€no€comparative€fault€instruction€was€given€to€theÐ ° Ðjury,€€no€objection€has€been€made€to€the€charge.€€The€jury€was€instructed,Ïhowever,€that€plaintiff€is€entitled€only€to€actual€damages€ð ðcaused€by€theÏdefendantððs€use€of€the€unfair€or€deceptive€acts€or€practices.ðð€ &Ý ƒ Îö$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XAXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝRufus€and€Linda€Mires€filed€the€original€suit€in€April€1995€but€took€aÐ ° Ðvoluntary€nonsuit.€€Mr.€Mires€died€after€the€suit€was€refiled,€so€Mrs.€MiresÏamended€the€complaint€to€list€herself€as€plaintiff,€individually,€and€as€theÏexecutrix€of€the€estate€of€Rufus€Mires.€€Since€Mr.€Mires€was€alive€throughout€theÏevents€that€precipitated€this€suit,€we€use€the€plural€ð ðplaintiffsðð€throughout€thisÏopinion. #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ úÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XdXXXÔÔ€ê²XXdÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XdXê²ÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular òÝ ƒ Ñ&$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ‡XdzXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€At€trial,€Hayes€argued€that€plaintiffs€had€not€suffered€any€actual€damagesÐ ° Ðbecause€the€home€was€worth€much€more€than€the€contract€price.€€In€support€ofÏthis€contention,€Hayes€presented€the€testimony€of€two€expert€witnesses€whoÏtestified€that€it€would€cost€between€$185,000€and€$200,000€to€build€the€homeÏaccording€to€the€plans€supplied€by€plaintiffs. úÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XdXXXÔÔ€ê²XXdÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XdXê²ÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€18,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XAXXXÔÝ  ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÃïXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óñ>ññ4ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` ttx0,°ð árßñ4ññ>ññAññ>ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` ttx0,°ð árßñ>ññAññAñßt€ (>.*jxš¯ÿ` `€€@Eް` ttx0ưJ àtßñAñà@Ì Ì ®àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@)®àAT€JACKSONˆÌà ` àà ¸ à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òLINDA€L.€MIRES,€ó óÐ ° ÐÌà ` àPlaintiff„Appellee,ñ-ññ,ñMIRñ,ññ-ñÌÌVs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àñ.ñDresden€ñ.ññ1ñWeakley€ñ1ñCircuit€No.€2893Ð ²  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àC.A.€No.€02A01„9707„CV„00172Ìò òDAVID€CLAY€AND€BILL€HAYES,€ó óÐ ²  Ðò òET€AL,ó óÐ ´  Ðà ` àÌà ` àDefendants„Appellants.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@Þ Þ ®àFROM€THE€ñ3ñWEAKLEY€ñ3ññ2ñDRESDEN€ñ2ñCOUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTˆÌà@÷ ÷ ®àTHE€HONORABLE€BILL€ACREE,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌà@½ ½ ®àJames€H.€Bradberry€&€Associtaes€of€DresdenˆÌà@rr(®àFor€AppelleeˆÌà@®®.®àˆÌà@"®àH.€Max€Speight€of€MartinˆÌà@00"®àFor€Appellant,€Bill€HayesˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@««$®àò òòòAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDˆÐ ¶'## ÐÌà@33'®àó óóóOpinion€filed:ˆÐ ¶)%% ÐÌÌÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ð ¶/++ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÐ Ê955 Ðñ/ñÌÐ Ì;77· Ðñ/ññ0ñÑ7€ÃïXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  Ñ›ÓÓÑ€úÑà ` àThis€case€involves€the€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€ActÐ ° Ð(TCPA)€in€connection€with€a€breach€of€a€residential€construction€contract.€ÏDefendant,€Bill€Hayes,€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€a€jury€verdictÏawarding€plaintiff,€Linda€Mires,€$5,000.00€for€violation€of€TCPA€and€the€trial€courtððsÏorder€awarding€plaintiff€$5,907.50€in€attorney€fees€and€expenses.Ìà ` àRufus€and€Linda€Mires€(plaintiffs׃ ×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×)€hired€defendant€David€Clay€(Clay),€anÐ °  Ðunlicensed€construction€contractor,€to€build€their€retirement€home€in€Martin,ÏTennessee€according€to€plans€that€they€supplied.€€The€total€contract€price€wasÏ$111,000.00,€to€be€paid€in€installments,€with€10%€down,€30%€when€the€house€wasÏð ðdried€in,ðð€30%€when€the€sheetrock€was€installed€and€the€plumbing€and€electricalÏwiring€roughed€in,€and€the€balance€due€upon€completion.€€€Since€Clay€wasÏunlicensed,€and€thus€unable€to€secure€a€building€permit,€defendant€Bill€HayesÏ(Hayes),€a€licensed€contractor,€applied€for€the€requisite€permit€under€the€name€HayesÏConstruction€using€his€license€number.€Hayes€testified€that€he€agreed€to€apply€for€theÏpermit€after€Clay€assured€him€that€he€was€in€the€process€of€getting€his€license,€thatÏhe€had€completed€almost€all€of€the€requirements€for€his€license,€and€that€all€he€lackedÏwas€a€recommendation€letter€from€a€code€inspector.€€Hayes€stated€that€his€intent€inÏapplying€for€the€permit€was€only€to€help€speed€up€the€permit€process,€that€he€neverÏintended€for€Clay€to€work€under€his€license€and€that€there€was€never€a€Ïprincipal/agent€relationship€between€Clay€and€himself.€€On€June€23,€1994,€the€CityÏof€Martin€issued€a€€permit€for€the€construction€of€the€single€family€residence,€listingÏHayes€Construction€as€the€contractor.€€The€permit€was€signed€for€by€David€Clay€asÏð ðcontractor€or€authorized€agent.ððÌà ` àTo€finance€the€project,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Mires€obtained€a€construction€loan€fromÐ °2..— ÐÑúÑÑ7€ÃïXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññ0ññ>ññ0ñÑúÑÑ7€ÃïXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññ0ññ>ññ4ññ0ñÑúÑÑ7€ÃïXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑúÑÑ7€ÃïXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑúÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  Ññ0ññ4ññ0ñMerchantððs€State€Bank,€which€later€became€Union€Planters€Bank.€€Clay€hadÐ °400 ÐÑúÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  Ñrecommended€that€plaintiffs€contact€Steve€Nowell,€the€bankððs€assistant€vice„¼president,€to€discuss€financing€the€construction.€Ìà ` àConstruction€began€as€scheduled,€but€after€a€few€months€plaintiffs€began€toÏcomplain€about€the€lack€of€progress€being€made€and€the€quality€of€work€that€hadÏbeen€completed.€€Up€to€that€point,€the€plaintiffs€had€paid€Clay€a€total€of€$88,500.00Ïin€various€checks€written€both€to€Clay€individually,€and€jointly€to€Clay€and€VowellÏ&€Sons,€Inc.,€the€lumber€company€supplying€materials€for€the€job.€€PlaintiffsÏarranged€a€meeting€with€Clay€to€discuss€their€concerns,€but€Clay€never€showed€up€forÏthe€meeting.€€Subsequent€attempts€to€locate€Clay€failed€and€the€plaintiffs€were€forcedÏto€find€other€contractors€to€complete€construction.€€Upon€investigation,€the€plaintiffsÏdiscovered€that€Clay€was€not€a€licensed€contractor€but€that€the€city€had€issued€aÏbuilding€permit€on€his€signature.€€Linda€Mires€testified€that€she€and€her€husband€didÏnot€learn€that€Clay€was€unlicensed€until€after€he€walked€off€the€job.€€In€addition,€theyÏdiscovered€that€Vowell€&€Sons€had€not€been€paid€by€Clay,€despite€an€agreement€thatÏmaterials€were€to€be€paid€for€before€Clay€received€his€share.€€Ìà ` àLinda€Mires€testified€that€after€learning€that€Bill€Hayesðð€name€was€on€theÏbuilding€permit,€the€plaintiffs€sought€his€help€in€completing€construction.€€SheÏtestified€that€Hayes€promised€to€help,€but€that€his€assistance€was€never€forthcoming.€ÏThe€plaintiffs€experienced€difficulty€in€securing€subcontractors€to€complete€the€work,Ïbut€after€expending€a€total€of€almost€$189,000.00׃×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€and€some€fifteen€months,€theÐ °,(( Ðhome€was€completed.€Ìà ` àThe€plaintiffs€initially€filed€suit€against€Clay,€Hayes,€Vowell€&€Sons,€Inc.,ÏMerchantððs€State€Bank,€and€Steve€Nowell,€the€bankððs€assistant€vice„president.Ð °2.. ÐPlaintiffs€alleged€that€Nowell€assured€them€that€Clay€was€one€of€the€best€builders€inÏMartin€and€that€Nowell€promised€to€visit€the€property€every€week€to€check€on€theÏprogress€of€construction.€€Plaintiffs€alleged€that€defendants€Nowell€and€MerchantððsÏState€Bank€owed€the€plaintiffs€a€fiduciary€duty€and€that€they€ð ðwere€in€a€position€ofÏsuperior€knowledge€concerning€the€honesty,€integrity€and€building€expertiseðð€ofÏdefendant€Clay.€€Plaintiffs€alleged€that€defendant€Vowell€&€Sons€breached€itsÏcontract€with€plaintiffs€by€not€applying€sufficient€funds€towards€the€balance€due€onÏplaintiffsðð€account€before€allowing€Clay€to€receive€his€share.€€Vowell€&€Sons€wasÏdismissed€as€a€defendant€and€David€Clay€could€not€be€located€and€thus€was€neverÏserved€with€process.€€Nowell€and€Merchantððs€State€Bank€were€dismissed€from€the€suitÏafter€they€settled€with€the€plaintiffs€for€$10,000.00.€€€During€the€subsequent€juryÏtrial,€plaintiffs€elected€to€take€a€non„suit.€€Ìà ` àPlaintiffs€refiled€the€instant€suit€on€May€24,€1996,€seeking€recovery€fromÏDavid€Clay€and€Bill€Hayes€only.€€The€complaint€alleges€that€Clay€was€Hayesððs€actualÏor€apparent€agent€and€that€Hayes€was€thus€liable€for€Clayððs€breach€of€contract.€€InÏthe€alternative,€plaintiffs€allege€that€Hayes€was€negligent€in€allowing€Clay€to€use€hisÏcontractorððs€license€to€obtain€the€construction€permit€and€that€he€knew,€or€shouldÏhave€known,€that€Clay€did€not€possess€the€experience€or€expertise€to€complete€the€jobÏin€accordance€with€the€terms€of€the€contract.€€Furthermore,€the€complaint€alleges€thatÏHayesððs€unfair€or€deceptive€acts€were€violations€of€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÏProtection€Act€(TCPA).€€Again,€Clay€was€not€located€and€was€never€served€withÏprocess.€€Defendant€Hayes€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€plaintiffsðð€complaint€for€failureÏto€join€an€indispensable€party,€the€City€of€Martin,€which€plaintiffs€allege€wronglyÏissued€the€building€permit.€€This€motion€was€denied.€€Four€days€before€trial,€HayesððÏattorney€located€David€Clay€by€telephone€after€contacting€one€of€Clayððs€relativesÏliving€in€the€area.€€Clay€refused€to€testify€on€behalf€of€Hayes,€but€stated€that€heÏwould€give€a€deposition€if€it€were€taken€outside€the€state€of€Tennessee.€€On€June€5,Ð °844 Ð1997,€the€date€set€for€trial,€Hayes€filed€a€motion€for€a€continuance€to€take€theÏdeposition€of€Clay.€€In€support€of€this€motion,€Hayes€attached€Clayððs€affidavit€inÏwhich€Clay€asserted€that€the€plaintiffs€were€aware€that€Clay€was€not€a€licensedÏcontractor,€that€Hayes€had€no€involvement€in€the€building€of€the€house,€and€thatÏClay€was€never€an€agent€for€Hayes.€€The€motion€for€continuance€was€denied€and€theÏmatter€proceeded€to€trial.€€In€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury,€the€only€theoryÏof€recovery€presented€to€the€jury€involved€the€alleged€violation€of€the€TennesseeÏConsumer€Protection€Act.€€The€jury€awarded€plaintiffs€$5,000.00€and€the€trial€courtÏawarded€$5,907.50€in€attorney€fees€and€costs€under€the€Act.€€Ìà ` àHayes€filed€a€post„judgment€motion€styled€ð ðMotion€to€Amend€Judgment€toÏAllow€Credit€for€Funds€Paid€to€Plaintiffs€by€Former€Co„Defendants.ðð€€In€this€motion,ÏHayes€asserted€that€he€was€entitled€to€have€the€$10,000.00€received€by€plaintiffs€inÏsettlement€from€Nowell€and€Merchantððs€State€Bank€applied€as€a€credit€to€off„set€theÏadverse€judgment€and€award€of€attorney€fees.€€This€motion€was€denied.€Ìà ` àHayes€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€presents€the€following€issuesÏfor€review:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€theÏMotion€of€Defendant€to€Amend€Judgment€to€AllowÏCredit€for€Funds€Paid€to€Plaintiffs€by€Former€Co„¼defendants.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grantÏDefendantððs€Motion€to€Dismiss€the€Complaint€againstÏhim€for€failure€of€the€Plaintiffs€to€join€an€indispensableÏparty.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!à3.€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€defendantððsÏmotion€for€a€continuance€in€order€to€take€the€depositionÏof€David€Clay.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€direct€aÏverdict€for€defendant€based€on€the€standards€required€toÏfind€liability€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€ProtectionÏAct.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ Ðà ` àà8 ¸ àÐ ¸ ü!¸ ü! Ðà ` àIn€his€first€issue,€aÓÓppellant€Hayes€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏgrant€his€post„judgment€motion€to€allow€credit€for€funds€received€by€the€plaintiffs€inÐ °955 Ðsettlement€from€former€co„defendants.€€In€support€of€his€motion,€Hayes€attached€aÏportion€of€the€trial€transcript€in€which€counsel€and€the€court,€outside€the€presenceÏof€the€jury,€discussed€whether€the€jury€should€be€informed€of€the€prior€settlementÏand€whether€Hayes€should€be€credited€with€the€amount€of€the€settlement€in€theÏevent€the€jury€returned€an€adverse€judgment.€€Plaintiffsðð€counsel€argued€that€the€juryÏshould€not€hear€evidence€of€the€prior€settlement,€but€conceded€that€it€would€beÏappropriate€to€give€Hayes€credit€for€that€amount€ð ðbecause€thatððs€fair.ðð€€The€courtÏruled€that€testimony€regarding€the€prior€settlement€was€appropriate€because€it€wouldÏaid€the€jury€in€determining€the€actual€losses€suffered€by€plaintiffs.€€On€cross„¼examination€of€Linda€Mires,€defense€counsel€elicited€testimony€regarding€theÏ$10,000.00€settlement.€€When€it€came€time€to€instruct€the€jury,€the€trial€court,€inÏsummarizing€the€positions€of€the€parties,€stated€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àThe€defendant€also€alleges€that€the€plaintiff€„„€that€theÏplaintiff€has€previously€claimed€that€the€actions€ofÏMerchants€State€Bank,€Martin,€Tennessee,€and€SteveÏNowell€as€then€officer€and€employee€of€said€MerchantsÏState€Bank,€now€Union€Planters€Bank,€was€also€theÏproximate€cause€of€her€damages.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌÓÓIn€its€order€denying€Hayesðð€motion€to€amend€the€judgment,€the€trial€court€stated€thatÏð ðthe€prior€settlement€was€properly€submitted€to€the€jury€during€the€trial€for€theirÏconsideration€during€deliberation.ðð€€Ìà ` àAppellant€cites€no€authority€which€would€permit€this€Court€to€grant€theÏrequested€relief,€but€instead€relies€on€the€apparent€agreement€made€between€counselÏduring€the€trial€of€this€matter.€€Indeed,€we€could€find€no€Tennessee€case€whereinÏcredit€was€sought€for€funds€previously€paid€under€these€circumstances.€€There€areÏnumerous€cases€wherein€a€party€has€sought€credit€for€funds€that€the€party€hadÏpreviously€paid€to€the€plaintiff,€or€for€funds€paid€to€the€plaintiff€by€an€insuranceÏcompany€on€its€behalf,€but€those€cases€typically€involve€claims€for€set„off€orÏrecoupment€which€are€inapplicable€here.€€Upon€review€of€the€record,€we€are€of€theÏopinion€that€there€is€not€sufficient€evidence€of€an€express€agreement€between€theÐ °955 Ðparties€to€allow€credit€for€funds€paid€in€the€prior€settlement.€€Plaintiffsðð€counselÏobjected€to€the€introduction€of€evidence€regarding€the€settlement€and€the€concessionsÏconcerning€credit€were€apparently€made€on€the€premise€that€the€jury€would€not€haveÏthis€information€when€assessing€damages€caused€to€plaintiff.€€œññññññFurthermore,€to€allowÏsuch€credit€in€the€absence€of€an€express€agreement€would€be€contrary€to€theÏprinciples€of€comparative€fault.€€An€action€under€the€TCPA€is€an€action€in€tort,€andÏas€such,€we€must€assume€that€the€jury€assessed€damages€against€Hayes€in€proportionÏto€his€fault€in€causing€the€plaintiffsðð€injury.׃ ×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ññññññThe›€denial€ofÏappellantððs€motion€to€amend€the€judgment€is€affirmed.Ìà ` àAppellantððs€second€issue€involves€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€dismiss€plaintiffððsÏcomplaint€for€failure€to€join€an€indispensable€party.€€Appellant€asserts€that€the€CityÏof€Martin€was€negligent€in€issuing€the€building€permit€on€the€signature€of€DavidÏClay,€and€that€the€plaintiffs€would€not€have€been€damaged€if€the€permit€were€neverÏissued.€€Furthermore,€appellant€argues€that€dismissal€was€appropriate€since€the€cityÏcould€not€have€been€joined€as€a€party€because€T.C.A.€ðð€29„20„302€requires€thatÏnotice€of€a€claim€be€given€to€the€governmental€entity€within€120€days€after€the€causeÏof€action€accrues.€€Ìà ` àFirst,€we€note€that€the€statute€appellant€relies€upon€regarding€the€120€dayÏnotice€requirement€was€repealed€in€1987.€€Second,€appellant€could€have€impleadedÏthe€city€as€a€third„party€defendant.€€Third,€appellant€did€not€hesitate€during€trial€toÏpoint€the€finger€at€the€city,€and€it€is€apparent€by€the€size€of€the€judgment€awardedÏthat€the€jury€did€not€place€all€of€the€blame€upon€the€appellant.€€Finally,€the€City€ofÏMartin€is€not€an€indispensable€party.€€Ìà ` àRule€19.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àà  àA€person€who€is€subject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€theÏcourt€shall€be€joined€as€a€party€if€(1)€in€the€personððsÏabsence€complete€relief€cannot€be€accorded€among€thoseÏalready€parties,€or€(2)€the€person€claims€an€interestÏrelating€to€the€subject€of€the€action€and€is€so€situated€thatÏthe€disposition€of€the€action€in€the€personððs€absence€mayÏ(i)€as€a€practical€matter€impair€or€impede€the€personððsÏability€to€protect€that€interest,€or€(ii)€leave€any€of€theÏpersons€already€parties€subject€to€a€substantial€risk€ofÏincurring€double,€multiple,€or€otherwise€inconsistentÏobligations€by€reasons€of€the€claimed€interest.€à x à€Ð°622¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌÓÓà ` àIn€this€case,€plaintiffs€were€free€to€sue€the€city.€€Appellant€was€free€to€ð ðpointÐ °844 Ðthe€fingerðð€at€the€city€at€trial.€€Moreover,€appellant€made€no€attempt€to€proceedÏagainst€the€city€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€14.01.€€We€hold€that€the€City€of€Martin€is€notÏan€indispensable€party€and€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€grant€defendantððsÏmotion€to€dismiss.€€Ìà ` àIn€his€third€issue,€Hayes€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grantÏhis€motion€for€continuance€to€take€the€deposition€of€David€Clay.€€Hayes€argues€thatÏthe€failure€to€grant€the€continuance€deprived€him€of€the€opportunity€to€presentÏevidence€that€the€plaintiffs€knew€all€along€that€Clay€was€not€a€licensed€contractorÏand€that€Hayes€had€not€authorized€Clay€to€sign€for€the€building€permit.€€SinceÏappellantððs€motion€for€continuance€was€not€made€until€after€the€jury€was€impaneled,Ïand€the€alleged€error€was€not€cited€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial,€we€believe€that€theÏissue€is€precluded€pursuant€to€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€In€any€event,€whether€to€grant€aÏcontinuance€is€a€matter€that€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€andÏits€decision€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€that€the€court€abusedÏits€discretion€and€that€the€party€seeking€a€continuance€has€been€prejudiced.€€òòò òBlakeÐ °  Ðv.€Plus€Mark,€Inc.ó óóó,€952€S.W.2d€413€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð ´" Ðà ` àAlthough€Hayes€has€arguably€been€prejudiced€by€not€having€the€testimony€ofÏDavid€Clay€before€the€jury,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretionÏin€denying€the€motion€for€continuance.€€The€motion€filed€by€Hayes€states€only€thatÏhis€efforts€to€locate€Clay€failed,€and€that€a€private€investigator€retained€by€a€formerÏco„defendant€was€also€unsuccessful.€€There€is€no€showing€of€due€diligence,€and€HayesÏbears€some€of€the€responsibility€for€his€predicament.€€The€trial€courtððs€denial€of€theÏmotion€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal.€€€Ìà ` àAppellant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€direct€a€verdict€inÏhis€favor€on€the€alleged€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€T.C.A.Ïðððð€47„18„101€to€47„18„5002€(1995).€€At€trial,€Hayes€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€atÏthe€close€of€plaintiffsðð€proof,€and€renewed€the€motion€after€resting€his€defense.€Ð ¸844 ÐHowever,€Hayes€did€not€file€either€a€post„trial€motion€for€judgment€n.o.v.€or€aÏmotion€for€a€new€trial.€€Appellee€asserts€that€appellate€review€of€the€directed€verdictÏissue€is€precluded€by€Rule€3(e)€T.R.A.P.€€which€provides:ÌÓÓà8 ` à[I]n€all€case€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€beÏpredicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,€juryÏinstructions€granted€or€refused,€misconduct€of€jurors,€parties€or€counsel,Ïor€other€action€committed€or€occurring€during€the€trial€of€the€case,€orÏother€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€is€sought,€unless€the€same€wasÏspecifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise€such€issues€willÏbe€treated€as€waived.Ó/JÓÐ ` ü!` ü! Ðà ` àThis€Court€has€previously€addressed€this€issue€in€òòò òCortez€v.€Alutech,€Inc.ó óóó,€941Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€891€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€In€òòò òCortezó óóó,€we€noted€that€when€the€alleged€error€isÐ ´ Ðthe€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€grant€a€directed€verdict,€either€a€motion€for€a€new€trialÏor€a€post„trial€motion€seeking€entry€of€judgment€in€accordance€with€a€motion€forÏdirected€verdict€made€at€trial€(judgment€n.o.v.)€is€sufficient€to€preserve€the€issue€forÏappeal.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€894„95.€€Failure€to€file€either€of€these€œpost„trial›€motions,€however,Ð ¸ Ðdenies€ð ðthe€trial€judge€the€opportunity€to€consider€or€reconsider€alleged€errorsÏcommitted€during€the€course€of€trialðð€and€precludes€appellate€review€of€that€issue.€Ð ¼  Ðòòò òIdó óóó.€at€895„96.€€€The€rationale€for€this€holding€is€supported€by€Rule€36(a)€T.R.A.P.Ð ¼"  Ðwhich€provides€that€ð ð[n]othing€in€this€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€beÏgranted€to€a€party€.€.€.€who€failed€to€take€whatever€action€was€reasonably€available€toÏprevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð€€Ìà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€suchÏfurther€proceedings€as€necessary.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€theÏappellant.€€Appellees€request€for€an€award€of€attorney€fees€on€appeal€is€denied.ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ð À1-- Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÐ Â2.. МññññññÌññññññò òCONCUR:›Ð Ä3// ÐÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÐ Ê622 ÐÌò ò____________________________________Ð Ì844 ÐHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óœññññññÔ‡ÿÿÔÔ‡ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔññññœÔ†ÿÿÔÔ†ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôñ0ñ