ÿWPCö& ?# ‚UN %Û 0 ˜áU<yw@µ4õ  0Ü  0Dü@ 0´@ Æô 0Jº U@ eD AQE 0D– 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 0@ø 1u8 D3­ 0dà D/D Bs BU >­B)ëDC AMWU*¤ÎÞMÊ+ÓõˆÈ´P¡v~¥vÓ#!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(püƒ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman EPUUUîÓ€ äzz!žŸ ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨3|x (Œ(3Od$¤¤Ý ƒüƒ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(Œ3oÚ$¢¢Ý ƒüƒ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô É¸·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2" 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$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò "# ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)))))'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ**'÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd$3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial uÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ€5ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€5XÔó óÌò òÔ€5¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€5XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€5ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€€The€Chalmers€are€the€owners€of€the€car€dealership€in€question.€€TheÏdealership€does€business€as€Friendly€Chevrolet.€€In€this€opinion,€the€defendantsÏwill€be€referred€to€as€Friendly.€€Ì ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€€Friendly€used€a€standard€contract€form€for€most€customers.€€However,Ïthese€customers€generally€purchased€cars€and€trucks€that€were€part€of€FriendlyððsÏinventory.Ì ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€€Schachter€received€a€$5,995.00€trade„in€allowance€for€his€minivan€forÏthe€second€Suburban€that€had€a€list€price€of€$31,602.54.€€The€resulting€purchaseÏprice€was€$25,607.54.Ì ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€€Schachter€has€not€appealed€the€chancellorððs€ruling€on€the€allegations€ofÏfraud€and€conversion.Ì ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€The€order€of€dismissal€does€not€specify€the€particular€named€defendantsÏthat€are€contracting€parties€and€no€issue€is€presented€in€this€regard.Ì —Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€€We€note€that€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code,€which€will€be€applied€inÏthis€case,€is€the€same€in€both€€Arkansas€and€Tennessee.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ7€CXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÙ€ÙßR€463A1-j|‰- `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€________________________________________________ÌÌò òMILTON€SCHACTER,€ÌÌà àó óComplainant„Appellant,ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9603„CH„00060Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Chancery€No.€103900„3Ìò òFRIENDLY€CHEVROLETÌCADILLAC€TOYOTA,€INC.,€et€al,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€D.€J.€ALISSANDRATOS,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌà@ àIra€M.€Thomas€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€AppellantÌÌà@ àFred€M.€Ridolphi,€Jr.,€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌÌà@ àò òòòREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óóóÌÌà@ àOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òà àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÓÓ›Ñ ° Ñà àThis€is€a€breach€of€contract€case.€€The€plaintiff,€Milton€Schachter,€appealsÏfrom€the€order€of€the€Shelby€County€Chancery€Court€dismissing€his€complaintÏagainst€the€defendants,€Hugh€Chalmers,€Sr.,€Hugh€Chalmers,€Jr.,€and€HughÏChalmers€Chevrolet„Cadillac„Toyota,€Inc.× ƒ7 ××  ×€Ìà àIn€September€1993,€Schachter€began€shopping€for€a€new€car€and€decidedÏto€purchase€a€Chevrolet€Suburban.€€He€couldnððt€find€exactly€what€he€wanted€soÏhe€decided€to€custom€order€a€Suburban€from€the€GM€factory.€€SchachterÏcontacted€the€Gwatney€Chevrolet€dealership€in€Memphis€and€configured€anÏideal€vehicle.€€Gwatney€printed€a€four„page€computer€printout€listing€theÍfeatures€and€the€options€and€quoting€a€price€of€$27,651.00.€€Schachter€wanted€aÏbetter€price€and€left€with€the€Gwatney€computer€printout€of€his€ideal€Suburban.€€Ìà àOn€October€28,€1993,€Schachter€approached€Friendly,€with€whom€he€hadÏmet€before,€and€discussed€the€computer€printout€with€Arthur€Dolittle,€aÏFriendly€salesman,€and€Rick€Helper,€the€sales€manager.€€Friendly€is€located€inÏWest€Memphis,€Arkansas.€€Friendly€initially€proposed€to€beat€the€GwatneyÏprice€by€$100.00.€€Schachter€eliminated€some€of€the€options€from€his€ideal€carÏand€agreed€upon€a€trade„in€credit€for€his€minivan.€€After€subtracting€theÏoptions€and€the€trade„in€credit,€Schachter€and€Friendly€agreed€upon€a€custom„order€price€of€$22,934.00.€€Schachter€also€agreed€to€pay€any€increase€in€the€GMÏfactory€price€to€Friendly.€€The€costs€of€options€to€be€subtracted,€the€amount€ofÏthe€trade„in,€and€the€resulting€price€were€written€in€red€ink€on€the€GwatneyÏcomputer€printout.€€Schachter,€Helper,€and€Dolittle€all€signed€the€agreement€byÏsigning€the€Gwatney€computer€printout.€€Schachter€testified€that€he€asked€for€aÏcontractual€piece€of€paper€but€was€told€that€the€signed€printout€would€suffice.× ƒ8 ××  ×€ÏHelper€was€authorized€to€bind€Friendly€to€a€contract€but€Dolittle€did€not€haveÏthat€authority.€€Dolittle€testified€that€he€signed€the€computer€printout€as€aÍwitness€to€the€deal€between€Helper€and€Schachter.Ìà àFriendly€required€a€deposit€for€the€custom„order€Suburban€and€requestedÏ$1,000.00.€€The€parties€agreed€upon€a€$400.00€deposit€which€Schachter€paid€byÏcheck€with€ð ðdeposit€on€four„wheel€drive€Suburban€total€price€of€$22,934€net€ofÏtradeðð€in€the€memo€space€at€the€bottom€of€the€check.€€Friendly€ordered€theÏSuburban€for€Schachter.Ìà àWhile€waiting€for€the€order,€Schachter€called€Dolittle€at€Friendly€and€wasÏable€to€change€the€color€of€the€interior€of€the€Suburban.€€In€addition,€SchachterÏcalled€Dolittle€multiple€times€to€check€on€the€progress€of€production.€€OnÏJanuary€27€or€28,€1994,€after€waiting€three€months,€Schachter€received€a€callÏfrom€Dolittle€notifying€him€that€the€car€had€arrived.€€Shortly€thereafter,€onÏJanuary€28,€1994,€Schachter€received€another€call€from€Friendly€stating€thatÏthey€couldnððt€sell€him€the€Suburban€at€that€price.€€Dolittle€testified€that€HughÏChalmers,€Jr.€told€him€he€couldnððt€sell€the€Suburban€at€the€agreed€upon€priceÏbecause€Friendly€would€make€more€money€selling€the€Suburban€wholesale€toÏanother€dealer.€€Friendly€claimed€that€they€could€not€find€any€records€of€theÏcomputer€printout€or€the€deposit.€€However,€Dolittle€had€a€copy€of€theÏagreement,€which€Friendly€confiscated€from€him.€€Later€in€the€day,€DolittleÏcalled€Schachter€from€a€pay€phone€away€from€the€Friendly€premises€and€statedÍthat€he€knew€they€had€a€deal€and€that€Friendly€wasnððt€going€along€with€it.€ÏWhen€Schachter€called€Friendly€to€ask€for€Helper,€he€was€told€that€Helper€wasÏno€longer€employed€by€Friendly.€€On€January€31,€1994,€Schachter€faxed€FriendlyÏa€copy€of€the€canceled€deposit€check.€€Ìà àOn€the€same€day€œthat€he›€learned€Friendly€wouldnððt€honor€the€agreement,ÏJanuary€28,€1994,€Schachter€contacted€an€attorney.€€On€February€1,€1994,ÏSchachterððs€attorney€faxed€Friendly€a€letter€asking€if€they€were€going€to€honorÏthe€agreement.€€When€Friendly€did€not€respond,€Schachterððs€attorney€faxedÏthem€a€letter€dated€February€4,€1994€demanding€a€return€of€Schachterððs€depositÏand€informing€them€that€a€lawsuit€would€be€filed.€Ìà àHugh€Chalmers,€Jr.€testified€that€he€had€no€knowledge€of€the€deal€madeÏby€Helper€with€Schachter.€€He€called€Helper,€who€no€longer€was€employed€byÏFriendly,€to€help€him€understand€the€terms€written€in€red€ink€on€the€computerÏprintout.€€Helper€remembered€agreeing€to€the€initial€price,€but€did€notÏremember€the€subtracted€options€or€the€trade„in€allowance.€€Chalmers€claimsÏthat,€after€he€received€a€copy€of€the€canceled€check€from€the€bank,€heÏunderstood€the€bottom€line€price,€and€then€he€called€Schachter€to€work€outÏtheir€problems.€€He€claims€that€he€called€on€February€7,€1994,€and€that€Ms.ÏSchachter,€the€plaintiffððs€wife,€told€him€they€had€already€purchased€aÍreplacement.€€Schachter€decided€to€purchase€another€Suburban€but€was€unableÏto€locate€a€similar€new€Suburban.€€On€February€5,€1994,€he€purchased€a€usedÏ1994€Suburban€with€9,867€miles€already€on€the€odometer€and€paid€$25,607.54Ïfor€the€car.œ× ƒ9 ××  ×›€€€Ìà àSchachter€demanded€his€deposit€back€with€interest€and€filed€suit€onÏFebruary€18,€1994.€€In€the€Complaint,€Schachter€alleged€that€Friendly€breachedÏthe€agreement€to€sell€him€a€custom„order€Suburban.€€He€alleged€that€FriendlyÏfraudulently€obtained€his€deposit€under€the€false€pretense€of€selling€him€theÏSuburban€and€in€an€effort€to€coerce€him€to€purchase€the€Suburban€at€a€greaterÏprice.€€He€also€alleged€that€Friendly€violated€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÏProtection€Act,€T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„101€òòet€seqóó.,€willfully€or€knowingly€by€causingÏconfusion€or€misunderstanding€as€related€to€the€authority€of€Dolittle€andÏHelper.€€Finally,€Schachter€alleged€that€Friendly€appropriated€and€converted€hisÏdeposit€for€their€own€use€and€benefit.€€In€their€Answer,€Friendly€raised€variousÏdefenses€and€denied€all€of€the€allegations.Ìà àThe€case€was€heard€before€the€Chancery€Court€of€Shelby€County,€sittingÏwithout€a€jury,€on€July€13,€1995.€€At€the€close€of€Schachterððs€proof,€FriendlyÍmoved€to€dismiss€the€case€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€41.02€(2).€€The€chancellor€foundÏthat€Schachter€did€not€carry€his€burden€of€proof€as€to€the€allegations€of€fraudÏand€conversion.× ƒ: ××  ×€€The€chancellor€also€found€that€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÏProtection€Act€did€not€apply€to€the€facts€of€the€case€and€no€relief€was€availableÏunder€the€Act.€€Finally,€the€chancellor€specifically€found€that€Schachter€madeÏout€a€prima€facie€case€of€breach€of€contract,€but€that€he€failed€to€prove€that€theÏbreach€of€the€agreement€resulted€in€any€compensatory€damages.€€In€an€orderÏdated€August€4,€1995,€the€chancellor€dismissed€the€complaint.œ× ƒ; ××  ×›Ìà àSchachter€appeals€from€the€chancellorððs€order€dismissing€the€complaintÏand€presents€the€issues€as€follows:€€1)€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€finding€thatÏalthough€the€defendants€breached€the€contract€with€the€plaintiff€to€sell€him€aÏvehicle,€the€plaintiff€nonetheless€suffered€ð ðno€damagesðð€under€the€law,€and€2)ÏDid€the€trial€court€err€in€finding€that€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€ActÏdid€not€apply€to€the€subject€transaction€because€it€lacked€sufficient€ð ðcontactsððÏwith€the€State€of€Tennessee€and€therefore,€under€conflict€of€laws,€the€law€ofÏArkansas€applied.€€Friendly€presents€an€additional€issue:€€Did€the€trial€court€errÍin€finding€that€the€Appellee€breached€its€contract€with€Appellant€to€sell€him€aÏvehicle.€€The€real€issue€before€this€Court€is€whether€the€chancellor€properlyÏgranted€Friendlyððs€motion€to€dismiss€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€41.02(2).€€Ìà àIf€a€motion€to€dismiss€is€made€at€the€close€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof€in€aÏnon„jury€case,€under€T.R.C.P.€41.02(2),€the€trial€court€must€impartially€weighÏand€evaluate€the€evidence€just€as€though€it€were€making€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€after€presentation€of€all€the€evidence.€€If€the€plaintiff's€caseÏhas€not€been€established€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€the€case€should€beÏdismissed€if,€on€the€facts€found€in€the€applicable€law,€the€plaintiff€has€shown€noÏright€to€relief.€€òòò òCity€of€Columbia€v.€œC.F.W.€Constr.›€Co.ó óóó,€557€S.W.2d€734€(Tenn.Ï1977);€ò òòòAtkins€v.€Kirkpatrickóóó ó,€823€S.W.2d€547,€552€(Tenn.€App.€1991).Ìà àOur€scope€of€review€is€pursuant€to€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€The€findings€of€theÏtrial€court€in€granting€a€T.R.C.P.€41.02(2)€motion€are€accompanied€by€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€and,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise,€those€findings€must€be€affirmed.€€òòò òAtkins€v.€Kirkpatrickóóó ó,€823€S.W.2dÏ547,€552€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€Ìà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€the€transaction€for€the€custom„order€Suburban€wasÏcompleted€in€its€entirety€in€Arkansas.€€The€agreement€was€negotiated€andÏsigned€in€Arkansas,€and€the€Suburban€was€delivered€to€Arkansas.€€In€their€brief,ÍFriendly€argues€that€the€law€of€Arkansas€controls.€€However,€Friendly€did€notÏprove€or€show€the€laws€of€Arkansas€that€control€the€outcome€of€this€dispute.€ÏœIn›€the€absence€of€a€showing€to€the€contrary,€we€presume€that€Arkansas€law€isÏthe€same€as€that€of€Tennessee.× ƒ< ××  ×€€òòò òShepard€&€Gluck€v.€Thomasóóó ó,€147€Tenn.€338,Ï347,€246€S.W.€836€(1922);òòò ò€John€J.€Heirigs€Constr.€Co.€v.€Exideó óóó,€709€S.W.2dÏ604,€609€(Tenn.€App.€1986).Ìà àAlthough€not€argued€by€either€party,€we€believe€that€the€transaction€inÏquestion€is€a€sale€of€goods€that€is€governed€by€Chapter€2€of€the€UniformÏCommercial€Code,€T.C.A.€ðð47„2„101€(1996)€òòet€seqóó.€€An€agreement€for€theÏdelivery€of€an€automobile€falls€under€the€provisions€of€Chapter€2€of€theÏTennessee€UCC:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà à(1)€ð ðGoodsðð€means€all€things€(includingÏspecially€manufactured€goods)€which€are€moveable€atÏthe€time€of€identification€to€the€contract€for€saleÏother€than€the€money€in€which€the€price€is€to€be€paidÏ.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà8 àà à(2)€Goods€must€be€both€existing€and€identifiedÏbefore€any€interest€in€them€can€pass.€€Goods€whichÏare€not€both€existing€and€identified€are€ð ðfutureÏgoods.ðð€€A€purported€present€sale€of€future€goods€orÏof€any€interest€therein€operates€as€a€contract€to€sell.ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€47„2„105€(1996).€€Obviously,€automobiles€are€moveable€goods.€€In€thisÍcase,€we€are€dealing€with€a€ð ðfutureðð€good€because€the€Suburban€had€not€yetÏbeen€manufactured.€€However,€it€is€still€treated€as€a€contract€to€sell€goods€underÏthe€UCC,€and,€therefore,€the€Friendly€transaction€will€be€governed€by€theÏTennessee€UCC.Ìà àFriendly€originally€argued€that€a€contract€was€not€formed,€and€therefore,Ïthere€could€be€no€breach.€€The€Tennessee€UCC€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà à(1)€A€contract€for€sale€of€goods€may€be€made€inÏany€manner€sufficient€to€show€agreement,€includingÏconduct€by€both€parties€which€recognizes€theÏexistence€of€such€a€contract.Ìà8 àà8 àà à(2)€An€agreement€sufficient€to€constitute€aÏcontract€for€sale€may€be€found€even€though€theÏmoment€of€its€making€is€undetermined.Ìà8 àà8 àà à(3)€Even€though€one€(1)€or€more€terms€are€leftÏopen€a€contract€for€sale€does€not€fail€for€indefinitenessÏif€the€parties€have€intended€to€make€a€contract€andÏthere€is€a€reasonably€certain€basis€for€giving€anÏappropriate€remedy.ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€47„2„204€(1996).€€The€proof€shows€that€Schachter,€Helper,€and€DolittleÏintended€to€make€a€contract€and€agreed€by€signing€the€computer€printout.€€œAn›Ïenforceable€contract€existed€that€provided€for€delivery€of€the€custom„madeÏSuburban€to€œSchachter,€and€Friendly›€breached€this€contract€when€they€refusedÏto€deliver€the€Suburban€to€him.€€Ìà àThe€chancery€court€held€that€Schachter€suffered€no€damages.€€TheÏTennessee€UCC€provides€for€the€measure€of€damages€under€the€headingÍð ðBuyerððs€damages€for€nondelivery€or€repudiationðð:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà à(1)€Subject€to€the€provisions€of€this€chapterÏwith€respect€to€proof€of€market€price€(ðð€47„2„723),Ïthe€measure€of€damages€for€nondelivery€orÏrepudiation€by€the€seller€is€the€difference€between€theÏmarket€price€at€the€time€when€the€buyer€learned€ofÏthe€breach€and€the€contract€price€together€with€anyÏincidental€and€consequential€damages€provided€in€thisÏchapter€(ðð€47„2„715),€but€less€expenses€saved€inÏconsequence€of€the€sellerððs€breach.Ìà8 àà8 àà à(2)€Market€price€is€to€be€determined€as€of€theÏplace€for€tender€or,€in€cases€of€rejection€after€arrivalÏor€revocation€of€acceptance,€as€of€the€place€of€arrival.€€ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€47„2„713€(1996).€€The€proof€showed€that€Friendly€did€not€want€toÏdeliver€the€Suburban€to€Schachter€because€they€could€receive€more€money€byÏselling€it€wholesale€to€another€dealer.€€There€was€obviously€a€difference€betweenÏthe€market€price€when€Schachter€learned€of€the€breach€and€the€contract€priceÏfor€which€Schachter€had€negotiated.€€Therefore,€we€must€respectfully€disagreeÏwith€the€chancellor€that€Schachter€did€not€sustain€any€damages.€€We€mustÏœremand€this›€case€back€to€the€chancery€court€to€hear€Friendlyððs€proof.Ìà àSchachter€also€œargues€that›€the€chancery€court€erred€in€its€ruling€that€theÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€(TCPA),€T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„101€(1995)€òòet€seq.óó,Ïdid€not€apply.€€The€TCPA€was€enacted€to€ð ðprotect€consumers€.€.€.€from€thoseÏwho€engage€in€unfair€or€deceptive€acts€or€practices€in€the€conduct€of€any€tradeÏor€commerce€in€part€or€wholly€within€this€state.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„102€(1995).€ÍThe€transaction€in€question€took€place€wholly€within€Arkansas.€€In€addition,€theÏchancellor€found€that€there€was€no€fraud€or€deception,€a€ruling€that€SchachterÏhas€not€appealed.€€The€chancery€court€was€correct€in€holding€that€the€TCPA€isÏnot€applicable€to€these€facts.Ìà àAccordingly,€œthe€order€dismissing€plaintiffððs€complaint€is€reversed,€andÏthe€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€defendantsðð€proof€and€such€otherÏproceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€The€costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessed€one„halfÏagainst€appellant€and€one„half€against€appellee.ÌÓÓ€à 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 óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.ÌSENIOR€JUDGEó ó̜ԀÔ