ÿWPC& …# VUNa %¯ 0GµU:üw@6 4v Š ™ B¡ ã 0Jë 0T5 0^‰ 0hç 0rO 0|Á 0†= 0à 1uS 0dÈ U>,U*jB)”DC½ B AMíjfWv~½ D3;vÓn 0@A AOÆÐ 0D– D/Ú B ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÕÖD×DØDÙÚÛÜDÝÓ€és|˜!3|xéC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ãÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òDecember€30,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€]ÒXXdædÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌTHOMAS€L.€and€LINDA€RADLEY,à à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellants,à àò ò)€€Shelby€Chancery€No.€104603„1€R.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9512„CH„00269Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBOBBY€E.€and€ALICE€E.€BROOKS,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLOR̜ـ€ÙßR€&'$A1-j|6Ÿ` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌœÌÌÌ›ÌÌò òRUSSELL€J.€JOHNSONÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òJ.€LOGAN€SHARPÌBATEMAN€AND€CHILDERSÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌœÌÌ›Ìò òAFFIRMEDÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìœ›ÓÓó óà àIn€this€action,€the€Plaintiffs,€Thomas€and€Linda€Radley,€filed€suit€against€theÑ€(ÑÇÑ7€]ÒXXdæXXdæ7ÑDefendants,€Bobby€and€Alice€Brooks,€based€upon€breach€of€a€land€sales€agreement.ÏThe€Plaintiffs€base€their€suit€upon€the€following€alternative€theories:€breach€of€contract,Ïbreach€of€warranty,€negligence,€misrepresentation,€fraud€and€violation€of€theÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€The€trial€court€rendered€a€judgment€in€favor€ofÏthe€Plaintiffs€for€$2,000.00€and€found€that€the€Defendants€were€not€liable€to€theÏPlaintiffs€for€intentional€fraud,€negligence€or€for€violation€of€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÏProtection€Act.€œ›€For€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà@ àò òFACTSó óÌÌà àOn€September€28,€1991,€the€Plaintiffs€and€the€Defendants€signed€a€real€estateÏpurchase€agreement€whereby€the€Plaintiffs€agreed€to€buy€and€the€Defendants€agreedÏto€sell€a€certain€piece€of€property€located€at€5619€Bartlett€Grove,€Bartlett,€œTN.›€The€realÏestate€purchase€agreement€included€the€sale€of€a€certain€wood€stove€insert€within€theÏfireplace€and€provided€an€express€warranty€that€all€appliances€in€the€home€were€ð ðinÏgood€working€order€at€the€time€of€closing.ðð€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant,€Bobby€Brooks,€installed€the€wood€stove€insert€into€theÏprefabricated€fireplace€in€the€fall€of€1984.€€In€1991,€the€Defendants€called€the€BartlettÏFire€Department€and€reported€a€chimney€fire€in€their€home.€€After€taking€the€stoveÏinsert€out€of€the€fireplace,€the€fire€department€found€smoldering€creosote€burning€onÏthe€floor€near€the€rear€of€the€fireplace.€€The€fire€department€then€extracted€theÍsmoldering€creosote€from€the€fireplace,€replaced€the€wood€stove€insert€and€gave€noÏwarnings€to€the€Defendants€of€any€potential€future€hazards€regarding€the€stove€insert.€ÏThe€Defendants€continued€to€use€the€stove€insert€after€the€fire€during€the€fall€of€1991Ïuntil€the€Defendants€sold€the€house€to€the€Plaintiffs.€ÌœÌ›à àWhen€the€Defendants€gave€possession€of€the€house€to€the€Plaintiffs,€they€leftÏthe€wood€stove€insert€in€the€house.€The€manufacturerððs€manual€for€the€stove€insert€wasÏleft€inside€a€cabinet€in€the€house.€ÌÌà àThe€Plaintiffs€took€possession€of€the€house€in€November€of€1991.€The€PlaintiffsÏused€the€stove€insert€during€the€winter€of€1991€and€1992€and€during€the€winter€of€1992Ïand€1993.€In€October€of€1993,€the€Plaintiffs€had€the€stove€insert€cleaned€byÏCoopertownððs€Mastersweep,€Inc.€(ð ðCoopertownðð).€Because€the€prefabricated€fireplaceÏhad€been€improperly€modified€and€because€the€wood€stove€insert€was€installed€in€theÏprefabricated€fireplace€contrary€to€the€manufacturerððs€instructions,€CoopertownÏadvised€the€Plaintiffs€not€to€use€the€wood€stove€insert.€Ìà àÌà@ àò òLAWó óÌÌà àThe€two€issues€before€this€Court€are€as€follows:€1)€did€the€trial€court€err€inÏholding€that€the€Defendants€were€not€liable€for€any€intentional€fraud,€negligence€orÏviolation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act;€and€2)€did€the€trial€court€err€inÏawarding€the€Plaintiffs€$2,000.00€in€damages.Ìà àÌà àFirst,€we€œconsider›€whether€the€Defendants€are€liable€to€the€Plaintiffs€for€fraud.€€InÏòòHiller€v.€Haileyóó,€915€S.W.2d€800,€803€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995),€this€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[t]he€general€principles€applicable€to€cases€of€fraudulentÏrepresentation€are€well€settled.€€Fraud€is€never€presumed;Ïand€where€it€is€alleged€the€facts€sustaining€it€must€be€clearlyÏmade€out.€€The€representation€must€be€in€regard€to€materialÏfact,€must€be€false€and€must€be€acted€upon€by€the€otherÏparty€in€ignorance€of€its€falsity,€and€with€a€reasonable€beliefÏthat€it€was€true.ÌœÓÓÓÓÌÓÓThis›€Court€further€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€party€alleging€fraud€takes€upon€himself€the€burdenÏof€proving€every€necessary€and€material€element€of€fraud,€and€fraud€will€not€beÏpresumed€from€a€showing€merely€that€a€motive€or€intent€to€perpetrate€the€sameÏexisted.ðð€€òòHilleróó,€915€S.W.2d€at€803.€€ÌÌà àTo€constitute€fraud,€the€complained€of€factual€misrepresentations€must€haveÏbeen€false.€€òòHarrogate€Corp.€v.€Systems€Sales€Corp.óó,€915€S.W.2d€812,€817€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1995).€€The€complaining€party€must€have€relied€upon€the€false€representation€inÏreaching€their€decision,€and€the€fact€misrepresented€must€have€been€ð ðso€material€thatÏit€determined€the€conduct€of€the€party€seeking€relief.€ð ð€òòIdóó.€€For€an€allegedÏmisrepresentation€to€be€actionable,€it€must€constitute€a€ð ðmaterial€inducementðð€for€theÏcomplaining€party€to€act.€€òòIdóó.€€Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€the€Plaintiffs€had€the€opportunity€to€discover€the€improperÏinstallation€of€the€wood€stove€insert€when€they€hired€their€own€inspector€to€inspect€theÏhouse€before€they€signed€the€land€sales€agreement.€The€Plaintiffs€also€had€anotherÏopportunity€to€discover€the€improper€installation€of€the€wood€stove€insert€by€readingÍthe€manufacturerððs€manual€that€came€with€the€stove€insert.€€We,€therefore,€agree€withÏthe€court€below€that€there€was€no€reliance€on€any€alleged€misrepresentation,€andÏthere€can€be€no€recovery€for€any€fraudulent€misrepresentation.€€ÌÌà àSecond,€we€consider€whether€the€Defendants€are€liable€to€the€Plaintiffs€forÏnegligence.€€A€claim€of€negligence€requires€proof€of€the€following€elements:€(1)€a€dutyÏof€care€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff;€(2)€conduct€falling€below€the€applicableÏstandard€of€care€amounting€to€breach€of€that€duty;€(3)€an€injury€or€loss;€(4)€causation€inÏfact;€and€(5)€proximate€or€legal€cause.€€€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.Ï1995);€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€865,€869€(Tenn.€1993);€òòKilpatrick€v.€Bryantóó,Ï868€S.W.2d€594,€598€(Tenn.€1993);€òòMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€774Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€Whether€the€Defendants€owe€a€duty€of€care€to€the€Plaintiffs€is€entirely€aÏquestion€of€law€for€the€court€to€determine€by€reference€to€the€body€of€statutes,€rules,Ïprinciples€and€precedents€which€make€up€the€law.€€òòBradshawóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€869.€€Ìà àÌà àAlthough€the€concept€of€duty€was€not€part€of€the€early€English€common€law€ofÏtorts,€it€has€since€become€an€essential€element€in€all€negligence€cases.€€òòMcCall€v.ÏWilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€153;€òòBradshaw€v.€Danielóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€869.€€€Properly€defined,Ïduty€is€the€legal€obligation€owed€by€the€defendant€to€the€plaintiff€to€conform€to€theÏstandard€of€care€of€a€reasonable€person€for€protection€against€unreasonable€risks€ofÏharm.€€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€153;€òòPittman€v.€Upjohn€Co.óó,€890€S.W.2d€425,Ï428€(Tenn.1994);€€òòNichols€v.€Atnipóó,€844€S.W.2d€655,€661€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€€W.ÏKeeton,€òòProsser€and€Keeton€on€the€Law€of€Tortsóó,€ðð€53€(5th€ed.€1984).€€A€risk€isÍunreasonable€and€gives€rise€to€a€duty€to€act€with€due€care€if€the€foreseeableÏprobability€and€gravity€of€harm€posed€by€the€defendant's€conduct€outweigh€the€burdenÏupon€the€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€that€would€have€prevented€theÏharm.€€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€153;€òòSee€alsoóó;€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó,Ïðð€291€(1964).ÌÌà àIn€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€listed€several€factors€whichÏmust€be€considered€in€determining€whether€a€risk€is€an€unreasonable€one.€€The€factorsÏlisted€by€the€court€include€the€following:€€the€foreseeable€probability€of€the€harm€orÏinjury€occurring;€€the€possible€magnitude€of€the€potential€harm€or€injury;€€theÏimportance€or€social€value€of€the€activity€engaged€in€by€the€defendant;€the€usefulnessÏof€the€conduct€to€the€defendant;€€the€feasibility€of€alternative,€safer€conduct€and€theÏrelative€costs€and€burdens€associated€with€that€conduct;€the€relative€usefulness€of€theÏsafer€conduct;€and€the€relative€safety€of€alternative€conduct.€€913€S.W.2d€at€153;ÏòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó,€ðð€292,€293€(1964).€€The€court€in€òòWilderóó,€therefore,Ïconcluded€that€a€duty€of€reasonable€care€exists€if€the€defendant's€conduct€poses€anÏunreasonable€and€foreseeable€risk€of€harm€to€persons€or€property.€€òòWilderóó,€913ÏS.W.2d€at€153.ÌÌà àOnce€it€is€determined€that€the€defendant€owes€the€plaintiff€a€legal€obligation€toÏconform€to€a€reasonable€person€standard€of€care,€then€the€question€becomes€whetherÏthe€defendant€failed€to€exercise€reasonable€care€under€the€circumstances.€€€òòWilderóó,Ï913€S.W.2d€at€153.€€Because€the€Defendants€used€the€wood€stove€insert€in€the€houseÍfrom€the€fall€of€1984€until€September€of€1991,€we€agree€with€the€court€below€in€itsÏdetermination€that€the€Defendants€were€not€negligent€in€exposing€the€œPlaintiffs›€to€anÏunreasonable€risk€of€harm.ÌÌà àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€Plaintiffs€have€established€a€viable€cause€ofÏaction€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€€This€Court€stated€in€òòSmith€v.ÏScott€Lewis€Chevrolet,€Inc.óó,€843€S.W.2d€9,€12€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€that€an€unfair€orÏdeceptive€act€need€not€be€willful€or€knowingly€made€in€order€to€recover€actualÏdamages€under€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòHaverlah€v.€MemphisÏAviation,€Inc.óó,€674€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€To€limit€recovery€to€onlyÏfraudulent,€willful€or€knowing€misconduct€would€render€the€treble€damages€provisionÏfor€willful€and€knowing€violations€of€the€Act€redundant.€€òòScott€Lewis€Chevrolet,€Inc.óó,€843ÏS.W.2d€at€12.€€Thus,€recovery€under€the€Act€is€not€limited€to€intentional€acts,€but€it€alsoÏcontemplates€negligent€conduct.€€òòIdóó.€at€13.€€However,€because€there€must€be€at€least€aÏminimum€a€finding€of€negligence,€the€Plaintiffsðð€cause€of€action€under€the€ConsumerÏProtection€Act€is€rendered€moot€by€our€affirmance€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€theÏDefendants€are€not€liable€to€the€Plaintiffs€for€negligence.€ÌÌà àFinally,€we€œconsider›€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€the€PlaintiffsÏdamages€in€the€amount€of€$2,000.00.€€In€òòLamons€v.€Chamberlainóó,€909€S.W.2d€795,Ï801€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993),€this€Court€stated€that€in€an€action€for€breach€of€contract,€theÏinjured€party€is€only€entitled€to€be€put€in€the€same€position€that€he€would€have€beenÏhad€the€contract€been€performed,€and€he€should€not€profit€by€the€defendantððs€breach.€ÍòòSee€alsoóó,€òòHennessee€v.€Wood€Group€Enterprises,€Inc.óó,€816€S.W.2d€35,€37€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1991);€€òòAction€Ads,€Inc.€V.€William€B.€Tanner€Co.óó,€592€S.W.2d€572€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1979).€ÌÌ€à àBecause€the€Plaintiffsðð€expert,€Ken€Robinson,€testified€that€the€Plaintiffs€couldÏbuy€and€install€a€new€prefabricated€fireplace€for€$2,000.00,€it€is€the€opinion€of€thisÏCourt€that€the€court€below€did€not€err€in€awarding€damages€to€Plaintiffs€in€that€amount.ÌÌà àÌÌÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxedÏto€Appellants.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.