ÿWPC# …# VUNa %¯ 0µUD¼ 4  0K# 0Dn ² w² 0JÈ 0T 0^f 0hÄ 0r, 0|ž 0† 0  1u0U,¥ 0dÑU,5U>aU*Ÿ BÉB)æDC AMRU*ŸÜÉ¥ D3&v~YvÓ× 0@ª! AOê!Æ9" 0Dÿ" D/C# Br#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ß Ñ$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XgØXXXÔÑ7€UXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Ó8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularnnG M Plus,LPT1:3|xM(û(3_$¤¤Ý ƒ Ñ!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XÕ XXXÔÑ7€Õ XXdìdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóBÓ€LM2 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< Œ 9p`(Times d% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌFebruaryÏ7,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó wÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝParagraph€4.13€of€the€agreement€provides:ÌÌà8 àà8 à4.13.€€òòLitigationóó.€€Except€as€set€forth€in€òòScheduleÏ4.13óó,€there€are€no€claims,€actions,€suits,Ïproceedings€or€investigations€pending€orÏthreatened€by€or€against,€or€otherwise€affectingÏSeller€at€law€or€in€equity€or€before€or€by€anyÏfederal,€state,€municipal€or€other€governmentalÏdepartment,€commission,€board,€agency,Ïinstrumentality€or€authority.€€Seller€does€notÏknow€or€have€any€reason€to€know€of€any€suchÏclaim,€action,€suit,€proceeding€or€investigation.€ÏNo€claim,€action,€suit,€proceeding€orÏinvestigation€set€forth€in€Schedule€4.13,€could,Ïif€adversely€decided,€have€a€material€adverseÏeffect€on€the€condition€(financial€or€otherwise),Ïassets,€liabilities,€earnings,€prospects€orÏbusiness€of€Seller.Ì####'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€""Xd#ÑÑ#€""Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àÏ_______________________________________________ÌÌNEW€LIFE€CORPORATION€OF€AMERICA,ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavidson€Circuit€#93C„1650ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9505„CV„00223ÌÌò òTHOMAS€NELSON,€INC.,ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì_________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€BARBARA€N.€HAYNES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àMichael€L.€Dagley,€David€A.€French€of€Farris,Ìà@ àWarfield€&€Kanaday€in€NashvilleÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌà@ àJon€D.€Ross,€A.€Scott€Ross€of€Neal€&€HarwellÌà@ àin€NashvilleÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌÌà@ àò òòòREVERSED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMEDÏIN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà@ àó óóóOpinion€filed:ÌÙ€€ÙßL€&(%;+'h|¡òD` ˆ, `€€LßÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.ÏFRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,ÏSENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiff,€New€Life€CorporationÏof€America€(New€Life),€appealsÏfrom€the€order€of€the€trial€courtÏwhich€granted€summaryÍjudgment€to€defendant,€Thomas€Nelson,€Inc.€(Nelson).€Ìà àNew€Life€is€a€Tennessee€not„for„profit€corporation€which€wasÏoriginally€founded€in€1979€as€World€Bible€Society€of€America€(WorldÏBible).€€Norvell€Olive,€World€Bible's€founder,€developed€a€successfulÏmerchandising€program€for€the€sale€of€audio€and€video€cassettesÏemphasizing€religious€themes.€€Apparently€by€1986€or€1987,€Olive€wasÏinterested€in€selling€the€business,€and€in€1988,€Nelson€made€an€offer€ofÏ$7,000,000.00€to€purchase€the€business.€€This€offer€was€rejected,€andÏOlive€arranged€for€the€sale€of€the€company€to€Jordan€Industries€forÏ$7,850,000.00.€€However,€the€transaction€for€the€sale€was€notÏcompleted.€€Subsequently,€in€1991,€Nelson€again€offered€to€purchase€theÏbusiness.€€The€offer€was€accepted,€and€Nelson€purchased€all€of€theÏassets€of€World€Bible€for€$6,150,000.00.€€The€terms€of€the€sale€areÏembodied€in€an€"Asset€Purchase€Agreement"€dated€October€1,€1991.€ÏFollowing€the€sale€of€the€assets,€World€Bible's€name€was€changed€byÏcharter€amendment€to€New€Life€Corporation€of€America.€Ìà àIn€June,€1993,€New€Life€filed€a€complaint€against€Nelson€seekingÏcompensatory€damages€in€the€amount€of€$6,100,000.00€and€punitiveÍdamages€in€the€amount€of€$25,000,000.00.€€The€complaint€avers€thatÏWorld€Bible,€through€a€division€known€as€Silver€Bells,€had€developed€itsÏbusiness€of€selling€Christmas€music€cassette€tapes€to€the€extent€thatÏannual€sales€exceeded€$8,000,000.00€by€1985.€€The€complaint€alsoÏavers€that€the€success€of€the€business€was€largely€a€result€ofÏplaintiff's€development€of€"highly€valuable€research,€development€andÏmarketing€data€and€techniques,€and€other€confidential€business€assetsÏincluding€without€limitation,€customer€lists,€supplier€lists,€businessÏplans,€marketing€strategies,€customer€preference€data,€pricing€dataÏ(both€current€and€historical),€product€cost€data,€and€profit€and€overheadÏinformation."€€Ìà àPlaintiff€alleges€that€in€1988€and€1989,€Harry€Lee€Dickey€was€itsÏpresident€and€chief€operating€officer€and€was€responsible€for€the€day€toÏday€conduct€of€the€business.€€Dickey€had€full€access€to€all€informationÏconcerning€every€aspect€of€the€business,€and€plaintiff€alleges€that€inÏFebruary€of€1989,€a€representative€of€Nelson€contacted€Dickey€aboutÏstarting€a€division€to€compete€with€World€Bible.€€The€complaint€allegesÏthat€during€the€period€of€February€through€May€of€1989,€Dickey€metÍwith€representatives€of€Nelson€and€at€the€request€of€Nelson€preparedÏmarketing€plans€and€financial€projections€for€Nelson€to€use€in€itsÏbusiness€as€a€competitor€with€World€Bible.€Dickey€prepared€the€plansÏfor€Nelson€while€he€was€World€Bible's€employee€and€in€the€preparationÏused€the€marketing€and€financial€information€developed€by€World€BibleÏfor€the€conduct€of€its€business.€The€complaint€further€alleges€thatÏNelson's€representative€told€Dickey€that€one€of€Nelson's€objectives€inÏobtaining€the€plans€and€projections€was€to€drive€World€Bible€out€ofÏbusiness€or€to€injure€World€Bible€to€such€an€extent€that€it€could€beÏpurchased€for€a€very€low€price.€€In€May,€1989,€Nelson€and€Dickey€enteredÏinto€an€employment€agreement,€and€Dickey€submitted€his€resignation€toÏWorld€Bible€on€or€about€June€1,€1989,€to€terminate€his€employmentÏeffective€June€30,€1989.€€The€complaint€further€alleges€that€DickeyÏassembled€plaintiff's€confidential€information€while€employed€byÏplaintiff€and€then€took€that€information€with€him€to€Nelson,€and€thatÏall€of€Dickey's€acts€were€performed€at€the€request€and€encouragementÏof€Nelson.€€The€complaint€avers€that€Dickey€breached€his€fiduciaryÏduties€as€an€officer€and€employee€of€the€plaintiff.€€Ìà àThe€complaint€further€avers€that€because€of€the€wrongfulÏactivities€of€Nelson,€World€Bible's€business€suffered€during€the€periodÏof€July,€1989,€through€September,€1991,€and€that€in€October,€1991,ÏWorld€Bible€agreed€to€sell€its€assets€to€Nelson€at€a€greatly€deflatedÏprice.€€The€complaint€avers€that€World€Bible€learned€of€Nelson'sÏactivities€in€December,€1992,€long€after€the€sale€of€its€assets€toÏNelson.Ìà àThe€complaint€sets€out€six€counts,€but€only€Counts€I,€II,€and€V€areÏinvolved€in€this€appeal.€€In€Count€I,€World€Bible€alleges€that€Nelson'sÏinducement€of€Dickey€to€perform€work€for€the€benefit€of€Nelson€whileÏhe€was€employed€by€World€Bible€constituted€an€inducement€orÏprocurement€of€the€breach€of€Dickey's€contract€of€employment€underÏthe€common€law€and€also€violated€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109€(1995).€€Count€IIÏalleges€that€Nelson's€actions€constituted€interference€with€existingÏbusiness€relations€under€the€common€law€of€Tennessee.€€Count€V€aversÏthat€plaintiff€is€a€consumer,€and€that€Nelson's€activities€violated€theÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„101,€et€seq.€(1995).Ìà àNelson's€answer€denies€the€material€allegations€of€the€complaintÍand€avers€that€plaintiff€has€no€standing€to€bring€this€action€because€anyÏclaim€or€cause€of€action€that€plaintiff€had€was€transferred€and€sold€toÏNelson€by€virtue€of€the€asset€purchase€agreement.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€granted€Nelson€summary€judgment€on€Counts€I,€II,Ïand€V,€but€denied€Nelson's€motion€as€to€the€remaining€counts.€€AfterÏplaintiff's€application€for€interlocutory€appeal€was€denied€by€thisÏCourt,€plaintiff€voluntarily€dismissed€the€remaining€counts€of€theÏcomplaint€and€appealed€to€this€Court€pursuant€to€Rule€3,€T.R.A.P.€ÏPlaintiff's€only€issue€for€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÏgranting€summary€judgment€to€defendant€on€Counts€I,€II,€and€V.€€Ìà àNelson,€in€its€brief,€presents€the€issue€of€whether€this€Court€hasÏjurisdiction€to€hear€the€case€because€there€was€no€final€order€enteredÏin€the€trial€court.€€Nelson€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€appeal€on€theÏsame€ground,€and€on€August€7,€1995,€this€Court,€in€denying€the€motionÏto€dismiss,€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThomas€Nelson€asserts€that€New€Life€cannotÏcreate€a€right€to€appeal€an€interlocutory€orderÏby€voluntarily€dismissing€its€remaining€claims.€ÏThis€court€disagrees.€€A€party€is€entitled€to€anÏappeal€as€of€right€once€the€trial€court€hasÍentered€a€final€order€that€resolves€all€theÏclaims€between€all€the€parties.€€Tenn.R.App.P.€3Ï(a).€€The€voluntary€dismissal€of€a€claim€resolvesÏthat€claim€for€the€purposes€of€Tenn.R.App.P.€3.€ÏConsequently,€the€order€dismissing€New€Life'sÏremaining€claims€resolved€all€the€remainingÏissues€between€the€parties€and€New€Life€wasÏentitled€to€an€appeal€as€of€right.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€order€of€this€Court€effectively€disposes€of€appellee's€issue,Ïand€we€will€not€consider€it€further.€Ìà àA€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€only€ifÏthe€movant€demonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€materialÏfact,€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw.€€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€56.03.€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.Ï1993);€ò òòòDunn€v.€Hackettó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€TheÏparty€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€of€demonstratingÏthat€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210.€ÏWhen€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€made,€the€Court€must€considerÏthe€motion€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€atÏthe€close€of€plaintiff's€proof.€€That€is,€"the€Court€must€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmovingÍparty,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€andÏdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence."€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€210„11.€€In€ò òòòByrdó óóó,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€thereÏis€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact,€theÏnonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byÏaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€isÏa€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€aÏtrial€[citations€omitted].€€In€this€regard,€RuleÏ56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannotÏsimply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€setÏforth€ò òòòspecific€factsó óóó€showing€that€there€is€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.€€ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€211.€€(Emphasis€in€original).ÌÌÓÓà àNelson€first€asserts€that€plaintiff€cannot€maintain€this€action,Ïbecause€plaintiff€sold€all€of€its€assets€to€Nelson,€including€the€allegedÏcauses€of€action€involved€in€this€case.€€The€Asset€Purchase€AgreementÏbetween€the€parties€provides€for€the€sale€of:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[A]ll€of€Sellers'€assets,€wherever€locatedÏ(collectively,€subject€only€to€such€specifiedÏexclusions,€the€"Assets"),€including€but€notÏlimited€to€the€following:€€all€of€Sellers'Ïrespective€rights,€properties,€cash,€assets,Ïcontracts€and€businesses€of€every€kind,Ïcharacter€and€description,€whether€tangible€orÍintangible,€whether€real,€personal€or€mixed,Ïwhether€accrued,€contingent€or€otherwise,Ïwherever€located,€including€without€limitation,Ïall€cash,€accounts€receivable,€inventories,€fixedÏassets,€machinery€and€equipment,€furniture,Ïfurnishings€and€fixtures,€prepaid€expenses,Ïdeposits€and€deferred€charges,€contract€rights,Ïcopyrights,€master€recordings,€trademarks,Ïservice€marks,€trade€names,€and€all€claims€andÏcauses€of€actions€brought€(or€subject€to€beingÏbrought)€by€either€Seller€relating€to€any€of€theÏforegoing,€including€claims€and€actions€for€pastÏinfringement.ÌÌÓÓà àNew€Life€asserts€that€its€claim€against€Nelson€was€unknown€atÏthe€time€the€assets€were€sold,€and€that€there€was€no€intent€to€includeÏany€such€claim€in€the€agreement.€€New€Life€further€asserts€that€theÏplain€language€of€the€agreement€does€not€include€unknown€claims,€andÏthat€a€separate€provision€of€the€Asset€Purchase€Agreement,€ParagraphÏ4.13,× ƒ) ××  ×€which€specifically€requires€disclosure€of€all€claims€and€suits€byÍor€against€plaintiff,€does€not€encompass€the€claim€involved€in€thisÏcase.Ìà àThe€agreement€specifically€transfers€claims€"brought€or€subjectÏto€being€brought"€which€implicitly€denotes€the€known€existence€of€theÏclaims.€€There€is€no€provision€to€transfer€unknown€claims,€and€it€isÏuncontroverted€from€the€proof€before€the€Court€that€plaintiff€did€notÏknow€of€the€claim€at€the€time€the€Asset€Purchase€Agreement€wasÏsigned.€€Moreover,€Nelson€specifically€denies€that€it€engaged€in€anyÏwrongful€conduct€and€thus€denies€the€existence€of€the€claim.€€UnderÏthese€circumstances€it€appears€uncontroverted€that€there€was€no€intentÏon€the€part€of€either€party€to€include€in€the€transfer€of€assets€a€claimÏof€plaintiff€against€Nelson.€€Ìà àWe€also€note€that€the€transfer€of€an€obligee's€claim(s)€to€anÏobligor€is,€in€effect,€a€release€by€the€obligee€of€its€claims€against€theÏobligor.€€The€transfer€by€the€obligee€of€claims€against€the€obligor€vestsÏin€the€obligor€all€of€the€obligee's€rights€in€these€claims,€thus€totallyÏeliminating€the€obligee's€ability€to€further€pursue€any€action€againstÏthe€obligor.€€This€is€the€same€effect€created€by€a€release.€Ìà àIn€ò òòòRichland€Country€Club€v.€CRC€Equities,€Inc.ó óóó,€832€S.W.2dÏ554€(Tenn.€App.€1991),€this€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€€First,€we€note€that€a€release€is€a€contract€andÏrules€of€construction€applied€to€contracts€areÏused€in€construing€a€release.€€ò òòòJackson€v.ÏMilleró óóó,€776€S.W.2d€115€(Tenn.€App.€1989).€€TheÏcardinal€rule€is€to€ascertain€the€intention€of€theÏparties.€€ò òòòBob€Pearsall€Motors,€Inc.€v.€RegalÏChrysler„Plymouth,€Inc.ó óóó,€521€S.W.2d€578Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€A€general€release€covers€allÏclaims€between€the€parties€which€are€inÏexistence€and€within€their€contemplation.€Ïò òòòCross€v.€Earls,€ó óóó517€S.W.2d€751€(Tenn.€1974).€ÏIn€ò òòòJacksonó óóó,€the€court€adopted€these€additionalÏpropositions€of€law€in€seeking€to€discover€theÏeffect€of€a€release:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àIn€interpreting€a€release€toÏdetermine€whether€a€particularÏclaim€has€been€discharged,€theÍprimary€rule€of€construction€is€thatÏthe€intention€of€the€parties€shallÏgovern,€and€this€intention€is€to€beÏdetermined€with€a€consideration€ofÏwhat€was€within€the€contemplationÏof€the€parties€when€the€release€wasÏexecuted,€which€in€turn€is€to€beÏresolved€in€the€light€of€all€of€theÏsurrounding€facts€and€circumstancesÏunder€which€the€parties€acted.€Ï(Citing€66€Am.Jur.2d€ò òòòReleaseó óóó€ðð€30Ï(1973).ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àClaims€in€tort€which€have€notÏmatured€or€were€not€known€to€theÏparties€when€they€executed€theirÏrelease€and€which€they€did€not€intendÏto€affect€when€the€settlement€wasÏmade€are€not€discharged€by€a€release.€Ï(Citing€66€Am.Jur.2d€ò òòòReleaseó óóó€ðð€33Ï(1973)).ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àA€release€ordinarily€covers€all€suchÏmatters€as€may€fairly€be€said€to€haveÏbeen€within€the€contemplation€of€theÏparties€when€it€was€given€.€.€.Ïconsequently€a€demand€of€which€aÏparty€was€ignorant€when€the€releaseÏwas€given€is€not€as€a€rule€.€.€.Ïembraced€therein€.€.€.€(Citing€76€C.J.S.Ïò òòòReleaseó ó€óóðð€52€(1952)).ÌÌ832€S.W.2d€at€557€(quoting€ò òòòJackson€v.€Milleró óóó,€776€S.W.2d€115,€118Ï(Tenn.€App.€1989)).ÌÌÓÓà àNelson€asserts€that€Olive's€affidavit€in€which€he€states€that€theÏclaim€at€issue€was€unknown€and€was€not€intended€to€be€included€in€theÏagreement,€violates€the€parole€evidence€rule€and€should€not€beÏconsidered.€€Nelson€argues€that€the€language€of€the€agreement€transfersÏall€of€the€assets€and€all€claims€and€causes€of€actions€of€any€nature,€andÏthat€the€affidavit€would€have€the€effect€of€varying€the€terms€of€theÏagreement.Ìà àA€contract€must€be€construed€with€reference€to€the€situation€ofÏthe€parties,€the€business€to€which€the€contract€relates,€and€the€subjectÏmatter€as€it€appears€from€the€words€used.€€ò òòòPetty€v.€Sloanó óóó,€197€Tenn.Ï630,€277€S.W.2d€355,€359€(1955).€€Ìà àOlive's€affidavit€clearly€shows€that€the€claim€against€Nelson€wasÏunknown,€and€in€the€absence€of€language€in€the€agreement€that€includesÏunknown€claims,€Olive's€affidavit€stating€that€the€claim€was€notÏintended€to€be€a€part€of€the€agreement€does€not€have€the€effect€ofÏvarying€terms€of€the€written€agreement.€€Moreover,€considering€theÏsituation€of€the€parties,€it€is€not€the€usual€and€customary€practice€inÍthis€type€of€arrangement€for€an€obligee€to€assign€to€an€obligor€itsÏclaims€against€that€obligor.€€Considering€all€of€the€factors,€ourÏinterpretation€of€the€agreement€is€that€it€does€not€include€any€claim€orÏcause€of€action€that€plaintiff€has€against€defendant.Ìà àNelson€next€asserts€that€plaintiff€must€either€disaffirm€theÏAsset€Purchase€Agreement€and€tender€the€consideration€therefor€orÏabide€by€the€agreement.€€Nelson€argues€that€plaintiff's€retention€of€theÏbenefits€of€the€contract€has€operated€to€affirm€the€agreement€andÏwaive€the€claims€presented€in€the€instant€case.€€Ìà àWe€do€not€disagree€with€the€general€proposition€asserted€byÏNelson€that€€a€party€may€not€affirm€a€contract€by€retaining€its€benefitsÏand€at€the€same€time€assert€that€the€contract€is€void€because€it€wasÏinduced€by€fraud.€€However,€that€is€not€the€situation€in€the€case€at€hand.€ÏIn€this€case,€plaintiff€contends€that€defendant€committed€acts€thatÏseriously€damaged€the€value€of€plaintiff's€business,€and€that€notÏknowing€the€cause€of€the€devaluation€of€its€business,€plaintiff€sold€theÏbusiness€to€defendant.€€Subsequently,€plaintiff€learned€that€defendantÏhad€committed€acts€that€damaged€the€value€of€the€business,€and€thenÍbrought€suit€against€defendant€to€obtain€compensation€for€theseÏwrongful€acts.€€There€is€no€claim€that€the€contract€was€induced€byÏfraud;€rather€the€claim€is€that€defendant€committed€tortious€acts€thatÏcaused€damage€to€plaintiff's€business.€€Under€this€scenario,€plaintiffÏneed€not€disaffirm€the€contract€for€the€sale€of€its€business€in€order€toÏrecover€damages€for€defendant's€alleged€wrongful€acts,€because€theÏsale€of€the€business€is€separate€and€distinct€from€the€acts€committedÏby€defendant.€Ìà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€Dickey's€deposition€establishes€that€he€wasÏplaintiff's€employee,€that€he€was€solicited€by€defendant'sÏrepresentative€to€provide€information€concerning€his€employer'sÏbusiness,€that€defendant's€representative€indicated€that€he€wanted€toÏinjure€or€damage€plaintiff's€business€to€the€extent€that€it€could€beÏprofitably€purchased€by€defendant,€and€that€pursuant€to€defendant'sÏsolicitation,€Dickey€provided€the€information€while€he€was€in€theÏemploy€of€plaintiff.€€The€deposition€further€indicates€that€Nelson'sÏrepresentative€actively€sought€Dickey's€services,€and€that€Dickey€wasÏenticed€by€defendant€to€leave€his€employment€with€plaintiff.€€TheÍrecord€also€indicates€that€plaintiff€released€its€former€employee,€HarryÏDickey,€from€any€and€all€claims€plaintiff€may€have€against€Dickey€inÏconnection€with€his€activity€on€behalf€of€Nelson,€and€Nelson€assertsÏthat€this€release€operates€as€a€release€of€these€claims€against€Nelson.€ÏWe€disagree.€€This€Court€considered€the€same€argument€in€ò òòòTSCÏIndustries,€Inc.€v.€Tomlinó óóó,€743€S.W.2d€169€(Tenn.€App.€1987)€andÏheld€that€a€compromise€settlement€of€a€breach€of€contract€actionÏbetween€the€injured€party€and€the€breaching€party€does€not€bar€anÏaction€for€an€inducement€of€the€breach€of€that€contract€against€a€thirdÏparty.€€à àÌà àCount€I€of€plaintiff's€complaint€alleges€a€cause€of€action€underÏboth€the€common€law€and€under€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109€(1995)€€forÏinducement€to€breach€a€contract.€€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò47„50„109.€Procurement€of€breach€ofÏcontracts€unlawful€„€Damages.ó 󀄀It€isÏunlawful€for€any€person,€by€inducement,Ïpersuasion,€misrepresentation,€or€other€means,Ïto€induce€or€procure€the€breach€or€violation,Ïrefusal€or€failure€to€perform€any€lawfulÏcontract€by€any€party€thereto;€and,€in€every€caseÏwhere€a€breach€or€violation€of€such€contract€isÍso€procured,€the€person€so€procuring€or€inducingÏthe€same€shall€be€liable€in€treble€the€amount€ofÏdamages€resulting€from€or€incident€to€the€breachÏof€the€contract.€€The€party€injured€by€suchÏbreach€may€bring€suit€for€the€breach€and€forÏsuch€damages.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€statute€is€declaratory€of€the€common€law€except€as€to€theÏamount€of€damages€that€may€be€recovered€against€a€wrongdoer.€€ò òòòEmmcoÏIns.€Co.€v.€Beacon€Mut.€Indem.€Co.ó óóó,€204€Tenn.€540,€322€S.W.2d€226,Ï231€(1959).€€The€elements€of€a€cause€of€action€for€procurement€of€theÏbreach€of€a€contract€are:€€there€must€be€a€legal€contract;€the€wrongdoerÏmust€have€knowledge€of€the€existence€of€the€contract;€there€must€be€anÏintention€to€induce€its€breach;€the€wrongdoer€must€have€actedÏmaliciously;€there€must€be€a€breach€of€the€contract;€the€act€complainedÏof€must€be€the€proximate€cause€of€the€breach€of€the€contract;€and,€thereÏmust€have€been€damages€resulting€from€the€breach€of€the€contract.€Ïò òòòCampbell€v.€Matlockó óóó,€749€S.W.2d€748,€751€(Tenn.€App.€1987);Ïò òòòDynamic€Motel€Management,€Inc.€v.€Erwinó óóó,€528€S.W.2d€819,€822Ï(Tenn.€App.€1975).Ìà àThe€evidence€in€the€record€at€this€stage€of€the€proceedingsÍestablishes€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€as€to€whetherÏthe€above€elements€are€satisfied€in€this€case.€€Dickey€had€a€contract€ofÏemployment€with€World€Bible€(New€Life),€and€although€the€contract€wasÏterminable€at€will,€an€action€can€still€be€maintained€for€procurement€ofÏthe€breach€of€the€contract.€€ò òòòDorsett€Carpet€Mills,€Inc.€v.€WhittÏTile€&€Marble€Distrib.€Co.ó óóó,€1986€WL€622€(Tenn.€App.€W.S.€Jan.€2,Ï1986)€òòò òpermission€to€appeal€granted€by€Supreme€Court€toÏconsider€appropriate€measure€of€damagesó óóó,€734€S.W.2d€322€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€Olive's€affidavit€and€Dickey's€deposition€state€that€Nelson€knewÏof€the€contract,€that€Nelson€intended€to€induce€its€breach,€that€NelsonÏacted€maliciously,€that€Nelson's€actions€caused€the€contract€to€beÏbreached,€and€that€World€Bible€(New€Life)€was€damaged€as€a€result€ofÏthe€breach.€€Plaintiff€has€come€forward€with€proof€which€establishesÏthat€there€are€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€as€to€Count€I,€andÏtherefore,€summary€judgment€was€not€appropriate.Ìà àIn€Count€II,€plaintiff€alleges€that€defendant's€actions€constitutedÏan€intentional€interference€with€a€business€relationship.€€In€ò òòòKanÏConst.€&€Cleaning€Corp.€v.€Tatumó óóó,€No.€01A01„9304„CV„00150,Í1993€WL€434741,€(Tenn.€App.€W.S.€Oct.€27,€1993)€the€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€elements€of€the€tort€of€interference€withÏbusiness€relations€are€also€set€out€in€45ÏAm.Jur.2d€ò òòòInterferenceó óóó€50€(1969).€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€basic€elements€which€establish€aÏprima€facie€tortious€interferenceÏwith€a€business€relationship€are€theÏexistence€of€a€valid€businessÏrelation€(not€necessarily€evidencedÏby€an€enforceable€contract)€orÏexpectancy;€knowledge€of€theÏrelationship€or€expectancy€on€theÏpart€of€the€interferer;€an€intentionalÏinterference€inducing€or€causing€aÏbreach€or€termination€of€theÏrelationship€or€expectancy;€andÏresultant€damage€to€the€party€whoseÏrelationship€or€expectancy€has€beenÏdisrupted.ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€4.ÌÌÓÓà àOlive's€affidavit€and€Dickey's€deposition€establish€the€existenceÏof€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€Nelson's€contactsÏwith€plaintiff's€employee€(Dickey)€constituted€an€interference€withÏplaintiff's€business€relationship€with€Dickey.€€Therefore,€summaryÏjudgment€was€not€appropriate€on€Count€II.€€Ìà àIn€Count€V,€plaintiff€seeks€recovery€pursuant€to€the€TennesseeÏConsumer€Protection€Act,€T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„101,€et€seq.,€(1995).€€PlaintiffÏasserts€that€it€was€injured€by€"unfair€and€deceptive€practices"€andÏtherefore€should€be€allowed€recovery€under€the€Act.€€Plaintiff€primarilyÏrelies€upon€ò òòòSmith€Corona€Corp.€v.€Pelikan,€Inc.ó óóó,€784€F.Supp.€452Ï(M.D.€Tenn.€1992),€which€held€that€corporations€may€recover€under€theÏAct,€and€that€recovery€under€the€Act€is€not€restricted€to€"consumers."€ÏThe€decision€in€ò òòòSmith€Coronaó óóó€is€not€binding€authority€on€this€Court,Ïand€we€see€no€need€to€analyze€the€case€in€view€of€the€language€of€theÏConsumer€Protection€Act€and€the€peculiar€facts€of€the€case€before€us.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€47„18„102€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò47„18„102.€€Purposes.ó 󀄀The€provisions€ofÏthis€part€shall€be€liberally€construed€to€promoteÏthe€following€policies:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(1)€To€simplify,€clarify,€and€modernize€state€lawÏgoverning€the€protection€of€the€consuming€publicÏand€to€conform€these€laws€with€existingÏconsumer€protection€policies;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€To€protect€consumers€and€legitimateÏbusiness€enterprises€from€those€who€engage€inÏunfair€or€deceptive€acts€or€practices€in€theÍconduct€of€any€trade€or€commerce€in€part€orÏwholly€within€this€state;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€To€encourage€and€promote€the€development€ofÏfair€consumer€practices;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€To€declare€and€to€provide€for€civil€legalÏmeans€for€maintaining€ethical€standards€ofÏdealing€between€persons€engaged€in€business€andÏthe€consuming€public€to€the€end€that€good€faithÏdealings€between€buyers€and€sellers€at€all€levelsÏof€commerce€be€had€in€this€state;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€To€promote€statewide€consumer€education.ÌÌÓÓà àT.C.A.€ðð€47„18„103€(1995)€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò47„18„103.€€Definitions.€ó ó„€As€used€in€thisÏpart,€unless€the€context€otherwise€requires:ÌÌà àà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà8 àà8 à(9)€€"Trade,"€"commerce,"€or€"consumerÏtransaction"€means€the€advertising,€offering€forÏsale,€lease€or€rental,€or€distribution€of€anyÏgoods,€services,€or€property,€tangible€orÏintangible,€real,€personal,€or€mixed,€and€otherÏarticles,€commodities,€or€things€of€valueÏwherever€situated.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€gravamen€of€plaintiff's€action€in€the€case€before€us€is€notÏthat€the€contract€for€the€sale€of€its€assets€was€infected€with€unfair€orÍdeceptive€acts€or€practices.€€On€the€contrary,€plaintiff€explicitly€arguesÏthat€the€sales€contract€is€not€involved€in€this€litigation€and€plaintiffÏhas€not€sought€to€disaffirm€the€contract€for€the€sale€of€its€assets.€€TheÏplaintiff€alleges€in€its€complaint€that€defendant€willfully€andÏmaliciously€damaged€plaintiff's€business.€€The€complaint€does€not,Ïhowever,€€allege€that€such€action€is€in€connection€with€any€"sale,€lease,Ïor€rental,€or€distribution€of€any€goods,€services,€or€property€.€.€.€€."€ÏUnder€the€allegations€of€this€complaint,€and€the€facts€in€the€record,Ïthere€is€simply€nothing€to€constitute€"unfair€or€deceptive€acts€orÏpractices€in€the€conduct€of€any€trade€or€commerce,"€and€therefore€theÏConsumer€Protection€Act€is€not€applicable.€€The€trial€court€properlyÏgranted€summary€judgment€on€this€count€of€the€complaint.Ìà àIn€summary,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€summaryÏjudgment€as€to€Counts€I€and€II€of€the€complaint€is€reversed,€and€theÏorder€granting€summary€judgment€as€to€Count€V€is€affirmed.€€The€caseÏis€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€beÏnecessary.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€appellee.€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.Ìó óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,ÌSENIOR€JUDGEó ó