ÿWPCG 6# UN %] 0ccU<Æw@4BVe {(m 0§• 0@< {Y| 0JÕ 0T 0^s 0hÑ 0r9 0|« 0†' 0­ 1u= 0d² B AQ3 Æ„ 0DJ 0DŽ 0DÒ D/ BE D3b U>• B)Ó DCü AM?U*ŒS¶· U6Àv~övÓt˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman >?D@UAUBUCDDUEîFÓ€Pê‚_#ÒÒ„°3|xR($¡¡(W(3’Œ$¤¤Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xô XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò(1â£$¡¡Ô‡V@ÕVXXÔÓÑ Ó2 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 d!" $&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd! .Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌMayÏ20,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€€Plaintiffððs€counsel€advised€the€trial€court€that€since€treble€damagesÏprovided€à àfor€in€the€statute€are€in€lieu€of€punitive€damages,€the€standard€ofÏproof€required€à àof€plaintiff€in€a€procurement€of€breach€case€should€be€clearÏand€convincing€à àevidence.€€To€the€extent€that€this€standard€may€be€inÏdispute,€we€hold,€in€the€à àalternative,€that€there€is€not€material€evidence€in€theÏrecord€to€support€the€à àverdict€of€the€jury.€€Ô€,ÔÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ŒÜXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òALFREDO€SHAHRDAR,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellee,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavidson€Circuit€No.€94C„255ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9710„CV„00553ÌÌò òGLOBAL€HOUSING,€INC.,€andÌMOHAMMED€SHARIFPOUR,€ó óÌÌà àDefendants„Appellants.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€DAVIDSON€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€MARIETTA€M.€SHIPLEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àDouglas€S.€Johnston,€Jr.;€Barrett,€Johnston€&€Parsley€of€NashvilleÌà@ àFor€AppelleeÌÌà@ àThomas€I.€Bottorff;€Bottorff,€Kavin€&€Cook€of€BrentwoodÌà@ àFor€AppellantsÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà@ àÌà@ àó óóóOpinion€filed:ÌÙ€!ÙßR€/1.A1-j|þôq` à. `€€@ÿRßÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òà àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORDó ó,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGE€ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌó óÌÓgÓ›ÔT€ÔÔT€ Ôà àThis€case€involves€the€alleged€breach€of€an€oral€employment€contract€andÏthe€inducement€of€that€breach€by€a€third€party.€€Defendants€Global€Housing,ÏInc.€and€Mohammed€Sharifpour€appeal€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€theÏplaintiff€Alfredo€Shahrdar€a€default€judgment€and€also€the€juryððs€award€ofÏdamages.€€Plaintiff€Alfredo€Shahrdar€assigns€error€to€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€toÏsend€the€issue€of€punitive€damages€to€the€jury,€as€well€as€the€$205,009Ïremittitur€suggested€by€the€court.Ìà àDefendant€Global€Housing,€Inc.€(Global)€owns€and€operates€a€HolidayÏInn€hotel€and€a€Howard€Johnsonððs€hotel€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.€€Global€is€aÏcorporation€headquartered€in€Georgia€and€owned€by€brothers€Javad€and€JalalÍSharifpour.€Plaintiff€Alfredo€Shahrdar€alleges€that€while€living€in€Reno,€Nevada,Ïhe€was€recruited€by€defendant€Mohammed€Sharifpour€(Sharifpour),€on€behalf€ofÏGlobal,€to€move€with€his€family€to€Nashville€and€take€over€management€ofÏGlobalððs€hotel€properties.€€Mohammed€Sharifpour€is€not€officially€connectedÏwith€Global,€which€is€owned€by€his€two€sons,€but€it€is€apparent€that€he€hasÏsome€involvement€with,€or€at€least€influence€over,€the€activities€of€the€Ïcorporation.€€The€complaint€alleges€that€ð ðplaintiff€was€to€be€a€permanentÏemployee,€paid€at€the€rate€of€$65,000€per€year,€plus€bonus,€benefits,€lodging,Ïfood€and€transportation,€and€was€to€be€paid€his€expenses€in€moving€himself€andÏhis€family.ðð€In€the€alternative,€the€complaint€alleges€that€ð ðplaintiff€was€hired€asÏa€temporary€employee€as€general€manager€of€the€two€properties€and€was€to€beÏpaid€at€the€rate€of€$1,800€per€week,€plus€the€above€stated€benefits.ðð€€Ìà àPlaintiff€alleges€that€he€moved€with€his€family€to€Nashville€and€took€overÏmanagement€of€one€of€the€hotel€properties€on€July€1,€1993,€but€that€he€wasÏnever€paid€by€Global€for€his€services.€€He€received€two€$2,500€ð ðadvancesðð€forÏexpenses,€but€despite€repeated€requests€and€assurances€was€never€placed€onÏGlobalððs€payroll.€€After€working€for€approximately€five€months€without€pay,Ïplaintiff€was€forced€to€quit€on€December€8,€1993.€€The€complaint€further€allegesÏthat€ð ð[i]n€addition,€defendants€Ñ7€ŒÜXXdðXXdð7Ñhave€refused€to€acknowledge€plaintiffððsÍemployment€at€all,€causing€plaintiffððs€reputation€within€the€travel€servicesÏcommunity€to€be€damaged,€and€preventing€him€from€obtaining€otherÏÑ7€ŒžXXdðL+Ldì7Ñemployment.ðð€€Ìà àPlaintiffððs€suit€against€Global€asserts€theories€of€breach€of€contract,Ïintentional€and/or€negligent€misrepresentation,€promissory€fraud,€andÏintentional€and/or€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€Plaintiff€seeksÏtreble€damages€from€Sharifpour€individually€for€inducement€of€breach€ofÏcontract€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€€€€ðð€47„50„109.€€Plaintiff€alleges€that€SharifpourÏhad€instructed€Behzad€Compani,€another€Global€employee,€not€to€pay€plaintiff,Ïand€that€he€later€instructed€his€sons€to€deny€that€plaintiff€was€ever€employed€byÏGlobal.€€Ìà àA€substantial€portion€of€the€nearly€500€pages€in€the€Technical€RecordÏchronicles€plaintiffððs€year€and€a€half€long€battle€to€receive€adequate€responses€toÏhis€discovery€requests.€€Defendantsðð€responses€to€interrogatories€and€requestsÏfor€production€of€documents€were€slow€in€coming,€generally€inadequate,€andÏcontained€what€the€plaintiff€described€as€ð ðboilerplate€objections,ðð€despiteÏvarious€orders€of€the€court€to€compel€compliance.€€As€a€result,€plaintiff€wasÏforced€to€file€several€different€motions€to€compel€discovery€and€for€sanctions.€ÏPlaintiff€moved€for€partial€summary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€whether€plaintiffÍwas€an€employee€of€Global€for€the€time€period€in€question.€The€motion€wasÏgranted€by€the€trial€court€based€upon€the€affidavit€of€Behzad€Compani,€a€formerÏemployee€of€Global,€and€the€deposition€testimony€of€Javad€Sharifpour€in€whichÏhe€admitted€that€plaintiff€had€been€an€employee.€€Ìà àOn€June€30,€1995,€approximately€seventeen€months€after€litigation€began,Ïplaintiff€moved€for€a€default€judgment€due€to€the€defendantsðð€failure€to€complyÏwith€discovery€orders.€€The€trial€court€granted€plaintiff€a€default€judgment€forÏbreach€of€contract,€intentional€misrepresentation€and€promissory€fraud,€and€setÏthe€matter€for€a€jury€trial€on€the€issue€of€damages€only.€€On€the€day€set€for€theÏdamages€hearing,€and€over€four€months€after€entry€of€the€default€judgment,Ïdefendants€moved€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment€and€continue€the€hearing.€ÏBoth€motions€were€denied.€€The€jury€awarded€plaintiff€$45,000€in€damages.€ÏDefendants€moved€for€a€new€trial€asserting€(1)€that€the€verdict€was€contrary€toÏthe€weight€of€the€evidence,€(2)€that€it€was€error€for€the€court€to€excludeÏdefendantsðð€evidence€of€telephone€and€restaurant€charges€incurred€by€plaintiffÏthat€should€be€set€off€against€any€award€to€plaintiff,€(3)€that€the€court€erred€inÏrefusing€to€set€aside€the€default€judgment,€and€(4)€that€the€court€erred€inÏinstructing€the€jury€that€damages€were€recoverable€for€intentionalÏmisrepresentation.Ìà àThe€plaintiff€also€moved€for€a€new€trial€asserting,€òòinter€aliaóó,€(1)€that€theÏcourt€erred€in€ruling€that€the€allegations€of€the€complaint€did€not€supportÏclaims€of€procurement€of€breach€of€contract,€defamation,€and€intentionalÏinfliction€of€emotional€distress,€(2)€the€court€erred€in€failing€to€allow€evidenceÏof€economic€€losses€suffered€by€the€plaintiff€after€December€8,€1993,€and€(3)Ïthat€it€was€error€to€keep€the€issue€of€punitive€damages€from€the€jury.€€TheÏcourt€granted€both€motions€and€a€second€trial€was€held€on€December€3,€1996.€€Ìà àThe€jury€awarded€damages€against€Global€for€breach€of€contract€in€theÏamount€of€$40,403.€€The€jury€also€assessed€damages€against€both€Global€andÏMohammed€Sharifpour,€jointly€and€severally,€for€intentional€misrepresentationÏand€promissory€fraud€in€the€amount€of€$270,009.€€This€amount€was€based€onÏexpert€testimony€presented€by€plaintiff€for€damages€incurred€for€the€three€yearÏperiod€between€trial€and€plaintiffððs€last€day€of€employment€with€Global,ÏDecember€8,€1993.€€In€addition,€the€jury€awarded€plaintiff€treble€damagesÏagainst€Sharifpour€for€inducement€of€breach€of€contract€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ððÏ47„50„109,€with€Global€and€Sharifpour€jointly€and€severally€liable€for€the€firstÏ$40,403.€€The€total€damages€award€in€favor€of€plaintiff€equaled€$391,218.€€ÏUpon€defendantsðð€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€court,€acting€as€thirteenth€juror,Ïsuggested€a€remittitur€of€$205,009€on€the€award€for€misrepresentation€andÍfraud.€€In€making€this€suggestion,€the€court€stated€ð ðthe€award€of€two€hundredÏseventy€thousand€nine€dollars€($270,009.00)€in€addition€to€the€other€damages€isÏtoo€speculative€and€evidences€passion€and€caprice€on€the€part€of€the€jury.ðð€TheÏresulting€award€for€fraud€and€misrepresentation€is€$65,000,€or€one€additionalÏyearððs€salary.€€The€plaintiff€accepted,€under€protest,€the€courtððs€suggestion€ofÏremittitur.€€€Ìà àThe€defendants€appeal€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€present€theÏfollowing€issues€for€review:ÌÓ3 Óà8 àà8 à1.€€The€trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€set€aside€aÏpartial€summary€judgment€finding€that€Plaintiff€wasÏan€ð ðemployeeðð€of€Defendant€Global€Housing,€Inc.ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€The€trial€Court€erred€in€granting€and€then€failingÏto€set€aside€a€Default€Judgment€in€favor€of€theÏPlaintiff€and€against€the€Defendants€for€ostensibly€notÏresponding€to€Plaintiffððs€discovery.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€€The€trial€Court€erred€in€sustaining€a€jury€verdictÏfor€damages€which€are€contrary€to€the€law€and€theÏCourtððs€charge€and€exceeded€the€Benefit€of€theÏBargain€Rule.Ìà8 àÌà8 àà8 à4.€€There€is€no€material€evidence€to€support€a€juryÏverdict€awarding€damages€against€DefendantÏMohammed€Sharifpour€for€inducement€of€breach€ofÏthe€Plaintiffððs€oral€employment€agreement€withÏDefendant€Global€Housing,€Inc.€Ìà8 àÌà8 àà8 à5.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€granting€PlaintiffÍdiscretionary€costs.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€raises€the€following€additional€issues€on€appeal:à àÌÌà8 àà8 à1.€The€court€erred€in€suggesting€a€remittitur€ofÏ$205,009€on€the€misrepresentation€claim.ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€The€court€erred€in€failing€to€send€the€issue€ofÏpunitive€damages€to€the€jury.à àÌÌÓ  Ó1.€PARTIAL€SUMMARY€JUDGMENTÌÓ  ÓÌÓgÓà àWe€will€address€these€issues€in€order,€beginning€with€the€grant€of€partialÏsummary€judgment€finding€that€plaintiff€was€an€employee€of€Global.€€A€motionÏfor€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movant€demonstrates€thatÏthere€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€isÏentitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04.€€The€partyÏmoving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€noÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòBain€v.€Wellsó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622Ï(Tenn.€1997).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allowÏall€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailingÏevidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€In€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993),€our€SupremeÏCourt€stated:ÌÓ3 Óà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€noÍgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€partyÏmust€then€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discoveryÏmaterials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÏdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05Ïprovides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€relyÏupon€his€pleadings€but€must€set€forth€òòspecific€factsóóÏshowing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€factÏfor€trial.à8 àÌò òòòÌId.ó óóó€at€211€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€in€original).ÌÌÓgÓà àSummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legalÏconclusions€drawn€from€the€facts€reasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€Ïò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€€Since€only€questions€ofÏlaw€are€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regarding€a€trial€court'sÏgrant€of€summary€judgment.€€ò òòòBainó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€622.€€Therefore,€our€reviewÏof€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€isò ò€òòó óde€novoóó€on€the€record€beforeÏthis€Court.€€ò òòòWarren€v.€Estate€of€Kirkó óóó,€954€S.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€1997).Ìà àThe€parties€have€been€involved€in€a€battle€of€semantics€over€the€termÏð ðemployee.ðð€€Plaintiff€argues€simply€that€he€worked€for€Global€for€five€monthsÏas€manager€of€one€of€its€hotels€and€that€the€defendants€have€wrongly€taken€theÏposition€that€he€was€never€employed€there€at€all.€€In€defendantsðð€brief€to€thisÏCourt,€defendants€take€issue€with€what€they€perceive€as€contradictoryÏallegations€that€plaintiff€has€made€regarding€who€hired€him,€for€what€rate€ofÍpay,€and€whether€he€was€an€employee€or€independent€contractor.€€However,Ïplaintiff€is€simply€seeking€compensation€for€his€services,€and€for€damages€thatÏhe€has€incurred€due€to€defendantsðð€refusal€to€acknowledge€that€he€ever€workedÏon€behalf€of€Global.€€There€is€no€issue€involved,€other€than€rate€of€pay,€thatÏwould€require€making€a€distinction€between€an€employee€and€an€independentÏcontractor.€€For€purposes€of€ruling€on€the€motion€for€partial€summaryÏjudgment,€the€identity€of€the€particular€individual€who€hired€plaintiff,€his€rateÏof€pay,€and€whether€plaintiff€was€an€ð ðemployeeðð€in€the€technical€sense€or€merelyÏan€independent€contractor,€are€not€relevant.€€If€plaintiff€can€show€that€there€isÏno€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€he€was€in€fact€hired€by€someoneÏat€Global,€or€on€Globalððs€behalf,€and€as€to€whether€plaintiff€actually€workedÏmanaging€one€of€Globalððs€hotels€or€not,€then€summary€judgment€is€proper.€€Ìà àIn€support€of€his€motion€for€partial€summary€judgment,€plaintiffÏpresented€the€testimony€of€Javad€Sharifpour,€the€president€of€Global,€whereinÏhe€admitted€that€plaintiff€was€working€and€ð ðrunning€thingsðð€at€the€hotel.€ÏPlaintiff€also€filed€the€affidavit€of€Behzad€Compani,€Globalððs€former€ChiefÏFinancial€and€Administrative€Officer,€who€stated€that€the€plaintiff€was€hired€toÏmanage€one€of€Globalððs€hotels.€€Defendantsðð€filed€a€cursory€response€to€plaintiffððsÏmotion€which€stated€simply:€ð ðDefendants€aver€that€there€are€numerous€genuineÍissues€of€fact€that€make€disposition€of€this€case€by€summary€judgmentÏimproper.ðð€€We€hold€that€defendants€have€not€met€their€burden€of€producingÏspecific€facts€in€response€to€plaintiffððs€motion€that€would€show€that€there€is€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.€€The€grant€of€partial€summary€judgmentÏthat€plaintiff€was€an€employee€of€Global€is€affirmed.ÌÓ  Ó2.€€DEFAULT€JUDGMENTà àÌÓ  Óà àDefendants€assert€that€the€default€judgment€was€improperly€grantedÏbecause:€(1)€defendants€timely€responded€to€plaintiffððs€discovery€requests,€(2)Ïthe€discovery€sought€related€to€the€issue€of€whether€plaintiff€was€an€employee€ofÏGlobal€and€that€the€grant€of€partial€summary€judgment€on€this€issue€obviatedÏthe€need€for€further€discovery,€and€(3)€the€motion€for€default€was€granted€at€aÏtime€when€defendants€were€not€represented€by€counsel,€their€attorney€havingÏrecently€withdrawn.€€Ìà à€Rule€37.02(C)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€€provides€that€aÏtrial€court€faced€with€a€party€who€fails€to€obey€an€order€to€provide€discoveryÏmay€render€a€judgment€by€default€against€the€disobedient€party.€òòSeeóó€òòò òYearwood,ÏJohnson,€Stanton€&€Crabtree,€Inc.€v.€Foxland€Development€Ventureó óóó,€828€S.W.2dÏ412€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€Although€this€sanction€is€extreme,€it€is€appropriateÏð ðwhere€there€has€been€a€clear€record€of€delay€or€contumacious€conduct.ðð€€òòò òIn€reÍBeckmanó óóó,€78€B.R.€516,€518€(M.D.€Tenn.€1987).€€When€a€trial€court€exercises€itsÏdiscretion€in€rendering€a€default€judgment€as€a€sanction,€its€decision€will€beÏdisturbed€only€upon€a€finding€of€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòò òHolt€v.€Websteró óóó,€638ÏS.W.2d€391,€394€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€Ìà àUpon€review€of€the€extensive€record,€it€is€apparent€that€the€defendantsððÏconduct€in€this€case€can€be€described€as€uncooperative€at€best.€€Many€of€theÏinterrogatories€and€requests€for€production€of€documents€went€unanswered€orÏwere€responded€to€with€ð ðboilerplate€objectionsðð€despite€court€orders€to€complyÏwith€plaintiffððs€requests.€€In€fact,€the€defendants€to€this€day€have€not€verifiedÏthe€answers€to€interrogatories€that€they€did€provide.€€In€addition,€when€plaintiffÏtraveled€to€Marietta,€Georgia€to€depose€the€person€designated€by€Global€toÏtestify€about€corporate€structure,€bank€accounts,€franchise€relations,€hiring,Ïfiring,€etc,€the€person€designated,€Javad€Sharifpour,€claimed€to€know€nothingÏabout€these€matters€despite€the€fact€that€he€is€president€of€the€corporation.€ÏFurthermore,€when€confronted€with€his€deposition€testimony€from€an€unrelatedÏcase,€Javad€Sharifpour€was€forced€to€admit€that€plaintiff€had€managed€one€ofÏGlobalððs€hotels€and€that€he€had€been€instructed€by€his€father€Mohammed€toÏdeny€it€in€this€litigation.Ìà àDefendants€contention€that€the€grant€of€partial€summary€judgment€onÍthe€issue€of€plaintiffððs€employment€status€obviated€the€need€for€the€discovery€isÏalso€without€merit.€€Defendants€are€being€sued,€òòinter€aliaóó,€for€intentionalÏmisrepresentation€and€promissory€fraud.€€The€requested€discovery€was€necessaryÏfor€plaintiff€to€show€not€only€that€plaintiff€had€worked€for€Global,€but€also€toÏdemonstrate€that€defendants€lured€him€to€Nashville€with€no€intention€of€payingÏplaintiff€for€his€services,€and€that€they€conspired€to€deny€that€he€ever€workedÏfor€Global€at€all.€€Ìà àDefendants€also€contend€that€plaintiff€took€unfair€advantage€of€theÏwithdrawal€of€defendantsðð€counsel€by€hurriedly€filing€the€motion€for€defaultÏjudgment.€€Deanna€Bell,€former€counsel€for€defendants,€filed€a€motion€toÏwithdraw€as€counsel€of€record€on€May€12,€1995€because€defendants€had€ð ðbeenÏextremely€uncooperative€in€this€matter.ðð€€The€motion€was€granted€by€the€trialÏcourt€on€May€26,€1995,€but€no€order€was€ever€entered.€€However,€the€judge€didÏmake€a€hand€written€note€on€her€calendar€granting€the€motion€and€givingÏdefendants€thirty€days€to€obtain€new€counsel.€€€In€any€event,€the€defendantsÏclaim€that€they€did€not€receive€notice€of€the€withdrawal€of€their€counsel€untilÏJune€2,€1995.€€Plaintiffððs€motion€for€default€judgment€was€filed€on€June€30,€1995Ïand€served€upon€defendants€Global€and€Sharifpour€at€their€designated€addressesÏrather€than€through€counsel€because€plaintiff€apparently€assumed€thatÍdefendantsðð€counsel€had€effectively€withdrawn.€€At€the€time€plaintiffððs€motionÏfor€default€was€granted€on€July€21,€1995,€the€defendants€claim€they€were€notÏrepresented€by€counsel.€However,€Mohammed€Sharifpour€testified€that€GlobalÏhad€full€time€in„house€counsel€during€that€period.Ìà àUpon€careful€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€find€that€the€defendants€hadÏample€notice€of€the€proceedings€and€ample€opportunity€to€respond€to€theÏorders€of€the€court.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€decisionÏto€grant€plaintiff€a€default€judgment.€€However,€ð ð[a]€judgment€by€default€willÏnot€authorize€a€decree€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€unless€the€complaint€shows€aÏground€for€relief€against€the€defendant.ðð€€òòGibsonððs€Suits€in€Chanceryóó,€ðð€143.€(6thÏed.€1982).€€The€trial€court€granted€the€plaintiff€a€default€judgment€on€the€issuesÏof€breach€of€contract,€intentional€misrepresentation€and€promissory€fraud.€€WeÏagree€that€the€complaint€supports€a€claim€for€relief€on€these€grounds,€but€findÏerror€in€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€ð ðthat€plaintiffððs€damages€are€not,€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€limited€to€the€period€of€July€1,€1993€„€December€8,€1993,€and€that€theÏplaintiff€may€proffer€such€evidence,€if€any,€of€damages€incurred€beyondÏDecember€8,€1993.ðð€€€The€default€judgment€was€properly€granted,€however,€asÏexplained€below€in€subsection€3B,€plaintiffððs€complaint€is€insufficient€to€justifyÏimposing€liability€for€damages€incurred€after€December€8,€1993.€ÌÓ  Ó3.€€AWARD€OF€DAMAGESÓ  Óò òA.€Breach€of€contractó óÌà àThe€jury€awarded€Plaintiff€$40,403€in€damages€for€breach€of€contract,€theÏbreach€being€the€failure€of€Global€to€pay€Plaintiff€for€his€services€and€expenses.€ÏThis€figure€is€the€one€asserted€by€Plaintiffððs€expert€as€the€amount€due€PlaintiffÏand€includes€amounts€representing€accrued€interest€and€employerððs€socialÏsecurity€contributions.€€The€amount€of€damages€to€be€awarded€rests€in€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€jury,€and€if€approved€by€the€trial€court,€will€not€beÏdisturbed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòò òEllis€v.€White€FreightlinerÏCorp.ó óóó,€603€S.W.2d€125€(Tenn.€1980);€òòò òSholodge€Franchise€Sys.€v.€McKibbonÏBrothers,€Inc.ó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€36,€42€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€Although€defendantsÏcontested€the€logic€behind€some€of€the€expertððs€calculations,€we€believe€that€theÏamount€awarded€by€the€jury€is€supported€by€the€evidence€and€is€within€theÏrange€of€reasonableness.€€We€find€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€Accordingly,€weÏaffirm€the€award€to€Plaintiff€of€$40,403€for€breach€of€contract.Ìò òB.€€Intentional€Misrepresentation€and€Promissory€Fraudó óÌà àIn€addition€to€breach€of€contract,€Plaintiff€was€granted€a€defaultÏjudgment€on€the€issues€of€intentional€misrepresentation€and€promissory€fraud.ÏThe€jury€awarded€Plaintiff€$270,009€on€these€claims,€but€the€trial€courtÏsuggested€a€$205,009€remittitur€which€the€Plaintiff€accepted€under€protest.€€UpÍto€this€point,€both€the€trial€court€and€this€Court€have€discussed€the€relatedÏconcepts€of€intentional€misrepresentation€and€promissory€fraud€as€if€they€wereÏtwo€distinct€causes€of€action€available€to€the€Plaintiff.€€However,€it€is€moreÏcorrect€to€think€of€intentional€misrepresentation€as€a€necessary€element€of€aÏfraud€claim,€while€promissory€fraud€is€a€type€of€fraud€perpetrated€by€means€of€aÏfalse€promise€of€future€action.€€This€Court€has€enumerated€the€elementsÏrequired€to€sustain€a€fraud€action€as€follows:ÌÓ3 Óà8 àà8 à(1)€an€intentional€misrepresentation€with€regard€to€aÏmaterial€fact,€(2)€knowledge€of€the€representation[ððs]Ïfalsity„„that€the€representation€was€made€ð ðknowinglyððÏor€ð ðwithout€belief€in€its€truth,ðð€or€ð ðrecklesslyððÏwithout€regard€to€its€truth€or€falsity,€(3)€that€theÏplaintiff€reasonably€relied€on€the€misrepresentationÏand€suffered€damage,€and€(4)€that€theÏmisrepresentation€relates€to€an€existing€or€past€fact,Ïor,€if€the€claim€is€based€on€promissory€fraud,€then€theÏmisrepresentation€must€ð ðembody€a€promise€of€futureÏaction€without€the€present€intention€to€carry€out€theÏpromise.ððÌÌòòò òStacks€v.€Saundersó óóó,€812€S.W.2d€587,€592€(Tenn.€App.€1990)€(citationsÏomitted).€€ÌÌÓgÓà àPlaintiff€claims€that€in€addition€to€payment€for€the€five„month€periodÏending€December€8,€1993,€€he€is€entitled€to€be€compensated€for€the€three€yearÏperiod€between€his€last€day€of€employment€and€the€second€trial.€€PlaintiffÏconcedes€that€he€cannot€recover€for€the€three€years€subsequent€to€his€departureÍunder€a€breach€of€contract€theory.€€Therefore,€in€order€to€recover€for€damagesÏsustained€after€December€8,€1993,€Plaintiff€must€show€that€any€damagesÏincurred€were€proximately€caused€by€an€intentional€misrepresentation€of€anÏexisting€or€past€fact€that€Plaintiff€relied€upon€to€his€detriment;€or€that€theÏdamages€incurred€were€proximately€caused€by€his€reliance€on€a€promise€ofÏfuture€action€that€was€made€without€the€present€intention€of€fulfilling€thatÏpromise.€€Plaintiff€claims€that€he€was€unable€to€get€another€job€becauseÏdefendants€represented€to€potential€employers€that€he€had€never€worked€forÏGlobal.€€Although€this€denial€by€Global€was€false,€it€was€not€a€misrepresentationÏmade€to€Plaintiff,€nor€could€Plaintiff€have€detrimentally€relied€upon€it€since€itÏoccurred€after€he€left€the€employ€of€Global.€€Therefore,€Plaintiff€can€onlyÏsucceed€if€he€can€show€that€the€defendants€made€a€promise€regarding€actions€toÏbe€taken€after€Plaintiffððs€employment€ceased,€and€that€reliance€on€that€promiseÏproximately€caused€the€loss€of€wages€for€the€subsequent€three€years.€€There€isÏno€such€evidence€in€the€record,€nor€is€there€even€an€allegation€in€the€complaintÏthat€Plaintiff€relied€upon€a€promise€made€by€one€of€the€defendants€toÏacknowledge€his€employment€with€Global€at€some€time€in€the€future.€€It€may€beÏtrue€that€plaintiffððs€reputation€in€the€travel€industry€has€suffered€because€ofÏGlobalððs€refusal€to€acknowledge€plaintiffððs€employment,€however,€that€denial€isÍnot€actionable€as€fraud.€€Plaintiffððs€allegations€most€closely€resemble€a€claim€forÏinterference€with€prospective€economic€advantage,€however,€our€Supreme€CourtÏhas€recently€held€that€there€is€no€such€cause€of€action€under€Tennessee€law.€€Ïòòò òNelson€v.€Martinó óóó,€958€S.W.2d€643€(Tenn.€1997).€€We€hold€that€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€Plaintiff€cannot€recover€damages€for€the€three€year€period€subsequent€toÏhis€departure€under€theories€of€breach€of€contract,€intentionalÏmisrepresentation€or€promissory€fraud.€Ìà àPlaintiff€is€entitled,€however,€to€recover€damages€incurred€during€theÏperiod€of€his€employment€as€a€result€of€promissory€fraud€if€he€can€show€that€heÏincurred€damages€beyond€those€awarded€for€breach€of€contract.€€The€injuredÏparty€should€be€compensated€for€the€actual€injuries€sustained€by€placing€him€inÏthe€same€position€he€would€have€occupied€had€the€wrongdoer€performed€andÏthe€fraud€not€occured.€€òòò òBlasingame€v.€American€Materials,€Inc.ó óóó,€654€S.W.2dÏ659,€665€(Tenn.€1983).€€Whether€the€theory€of€recovery€is€breach€of€contract,Ïintentional€misrepresentation,€or€promissory€fraud,€if€the€damages€claimedÏunder€each€theory€overlap,€the€Plaintiff€is€only€entitled€to€one€recovery.òòò ò€€AlliedÏSound,€Inc.€v.€Neelyó óóó,€909€S.W.2d€815,€821€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€Ìà àPlaintiff€has€neither€pled€nor€proven€damages€different€in€kind€or€amountÏsufficient€to€justify€an€award€of€damages€beyond€what€he€was€awarded€forÍbreach€of€contract.€€Therefore,€we€must€vacate€the€trail€courtððs€award€ofÏ$65,000€in€damages€(after€remittitur)€on€the€claim€of€misrepresentation€andÏpromissory€fraud.ÌÓ  Ó4.€PROCUREMENT€OF€BREACH€OF€CONTRACTÌÓ  Óà àPlaintiff€sued€defendant€Sharifpour€individually€for€procurement€ofÏbreach€of€contract€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109€which€provides:ÌÓ3 Óà8 àà8 àIt€is€unlawful€for€any€person,€by€inducement,Ïpersuasion,€misrepresentation,€or€other€means,€toÏinduce€or€procure€the€breach€or€violation,€refusal€orÏfailure€to€perform€any€lawful€contract€by€any€partyÏthereto;€and,€in€every€case€where€a€breach€or€violationÏof€such€contract€is€so€procured,€the€person€soÏprocuring€or€inducing€the€same€shall€be€liable€in€trebleÏthe€amount€of€damages€resulting€from€or€incident€toÏthe€breach€of€the€contract.€€The€party€injured€ÌÌÓhÿÓà8 àà8 àby€such€breach€may€bring€suit€for€the€breach€and€forÏsuch€damages.ÌÌÓgÓThis€section€is€a€codification€of€the€common€law€tort€action€and€provides€forÏmandatory€treble€damages€if€there€is€a€òòclear€showingóó€that€the€defendant€inducedÏthe€breach.€€òòò òPolk€&€Sullivan,€Inc.€v.€United€Cities€Gas€Co.ó óóó,€783€S.W.2d€538,Ï542€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€order€to€recover€under€the€statute,€the€plaintiff€mustÏprove€that:€(1)€there€was€a€legal€contract;€(2)€the€wrongdoer€was€aware€of€theÏcontract;€(3)€the€defendant€€intended€to€induce€a€breach;€(4)€the€defendantÍacted€maliciously;€(5)€the€contract€was€actually€breached;€(6)€the€actÏcomplained€of€was€the€proximate€cause€of€the€breach;€and€(7)€damages€resultedÏfrom€the€breach.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€543;€òòò òMyers€v.€Pickering€Firm,€Inc.ó óóó,€959€S.W.2d€152,€158Ï(Tenn.€App.€1997).€€Ìà àPlaintiff€was€not€granted€a€default€judgment€on€this€issue,€however,€theÏjury€found€that€defendant€Sharifpour€had€induced€the€breach€of€plaintiffððsÏcontract€with€Global.€€In€reviewing€a€jury€verdict€where€the€standard€of€proofÏrequired€is€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€this€Court€must€examine€the€recordÏto€determine€if€there€is€clear,€cogent€and€convincing€evidence€to€support€theÏfindings€of€the€jury.òòò ò€€Shell€v.€Lawó óóó,€935€S.W.2d€402,€405€(Tenn.€App.€1996).ÏClear€and€convincing€evidence€means€that€the€plaintiff€has€shown€that€there€isÏno€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€conclusions€the€plaintiff€is€attemptingÏto€prove.€€òòò òOððDaniel€v.€Messieró óóó,€905€S.W.2d€182,€188€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€à àÌà àFor€the€record,€we€would€like€to€point€out€that€we€have€serious€doubtsÏabout€whether€Sharifpour€is€a€proper€defendant€for€a€procurement€of€breachÏaction.€€It€is€abundantly€clear€that€Global€is€controlled€by€Sharifpour,€and€thatÏhis€sons€who€are€the€actual€owners€and€officers€of€the€corporation€have€no€ideaÏwhat€is€going€on€under€their€noses.€€Sharifpour€is€so€closely€tied€to€theÏoperations€of€Global€as€either€an€agent€or€ð ðadvisorðð€that€he€is€more€akin€to€aòòÍdefactoóó€officer€than€a€third€party.€€However,€we€need€not€rule€on€this€questionÏbecause€careful€review€of€all€trial€and€deposition€testimony€has€revealed€noÏtestimony€which€indicates€that€Mr.€Sharifpour€instructed€any€employee€orÏofficer€of€Global€not€to€pay€plaintiff€for€his€services.€€Plaintiff€testified€thatÏwhen€he€was€not€paid€at€the€end€of€the€first€payroll€cycle€he€contacted€Mr.ÏCompani€who€stated€ð ðMr.€Sharifpour€did€not€instruct€me€or€order€me€to€haveÏyou€on€payroll,€and€Iððd€rather€have€you€„„€have€you€on€payroll€in€home€office.ðð€ÏA€failure€to€give€an€order€to€place€plaintiff€on€the€payroll€falls€far€short€of€anÏorder€not€to€do€so,€and€in€any€event,€would€not€comprise€clear€and€convincingÏevidence€of€an€inducement€to€breach€the€contract.€€There€is€ample€evidence€inÏthe€record€to€indicate€that€Sharifpour€instructed€his€sons€to€deny€that€plaintiffÏwas€ever€an€employee€and€that€he€knew€this€would€make€it€difficult€for€plaintiffÏto€find€other€employment.€€However,€these€acts€occured€after€the€breachÏcomplained€of€and€cannot€as€a€matter€of€law€have€induced€the€breach.€ÏIronically,€the€one€person€who€could€corroborate€plaintiffððs€allegations,€BehzadÏCompani,€was€never€deposed€or€called€as€a€witness.€€The€affidavit€of€Mr.ÏCompani€filed€in€support€of€plaintiffððs€motion€for€partial€summary€judgmentÏcould€be€read€as€implying€that€Sharifpour€had€instructed€Compani€not€to€placeÏplaintiff€on€the€payroll,€but€that€affidavit€was€not€before€the€jury.€€Ìà àAlthough€we€have€no€doubt€that€plaintiff€was€not€paid,€and€that€it€isÏlikely€that€Sharifpour,€who€was€calling€the€shots€for€Global,€never€intended€toÏpay€plaintiff,€there€is€not€clear€and€convincing€evidence× ƒ2 ××  ×€from€which€a€juryÏcould€reasonably€find€that€Sharifpour€procured€the€breach€of€contract.€ÏTherefore,€we€must€vacate€the€portion€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€awarding€trebleÏdamages€for€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109.€ÌÓ  Ó5.€DISCRETIONARY€COSTSÌÓ  Óà àThe€trial€court€awarded€plaintiff€discretionary€costs€in€the€amount€ofÏ$5,985.55.€€The€majority€of€the€$7,619.07€requested€by€plaintiff€went€to€theÏexpert€economist€hired€to€testify€to€plaintiffððs€damages.€€Defendants€assert€thatÏsince€plaintiff€is€only€entitled€to€recover€unpaid€wages€for€the€five€months€heÏworked€for€Global,€it€was€unnecessary€to€hire€an€expert€to€make€thatÏcalculation.€€€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€permit€the€trial€court€to€award€aÏparty€discretionary€costs€that€are€for€ð ðreasonable€and€necessary€court€reporterÍexpenses€for€depositions€or€trials,€reasonable€and€necessary€expert€witness€feesÏfor€depositions€or€trials,€and€guardian€ad€litem€fees.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.04(2).Ïð ð[T]ravel€expenses€are€not€allowable€discretionary€costs.ðð€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€Our€SupremeÏCourt€has€held€that€recovery€of€expert€fees€under€the€rule€is€limited€to€feesÏincurred€for€actual€deposition€or€trial€testimony.€€Fees€for€preparation€time€areÏnot€recoverable.ò òòò€€Miles€v.€Marshall€C.€Voss€Health€Care€Ctr.ó óóó,€896€S.W.2d€773Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€As€the€term€itself€suggests,€the€decision€whether€to€award€aÏparty€discretionary€costs€rests€with€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court€andÏwill€not€be€disturbed€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.04(2);Ïòòò òLock€v.€National€Union€Fire€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€809€S.W.2d€483€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ìà àPlaintiff€filed€an€exhibit€detailing€costs€incurred€in€this€matter€totalingÏ$7,591.56.€€It€is€unclear€why€this€amount€differs€from€the€total€amountÏrequested€in€plaintiffððs€motion;€why€the€total€amount€of€expert€fees€incurred€isÏnot€included€in€the€exhibit;€or€how€the€trial€court€arrived€at€the€figure€awarded.€ÏThe€expert€witness€fees€and€expenses€detailed€in€plaintiffððs€exhibit€B€to€hisÏmotion€for€discretionary€costs€comprise€$4,004.02€of€the€total€$7,591.56Ïrequested.€€It€appears€that€when€the€trial€court€awarded€plaintiff€$5985.55€itÏwrongly€awarded€at€least€a€portion€of€the€expertððs€fees€and€travel€expenses,€andÏperhaps€some€other€expressly€disallowed€costs€as€well.€€Although€the€partiesÍdispute€the€necessity€of€the€expertððs€testimony,€the€testimony€was€permitted€byÏthe€trial€court€and€not€objected€to€by€the€defendants.€€We€hold€that€given€theÏnature€of€this€case€and€the€conduct€of€the€defendants,€the€trial€court€properlyÏdecided€to€award€discretionary€costs.€€However,€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€toÏrecover€only€those€costs€specifically€provided€for€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.04(2),Ïand€we€vacate€the€trial€courtððs€previous€award€and€remand€the€case€for€aÏdetermination€of€the€proper€discretionary€costs€in€accordance€with€the€RuleÏand€this€opinion.€ÌÓ  ÓREMITTITUR€&€PUNITIVE€DAMAGESÌÓ  Óà àPlaintiff€assigns€error€to€the€trial€courtððs€suggestion€of€remittitur€and€itsÏfailure€to€send€the€issue€of€punitive€damages€to€the€jury.€€The€question€of€theÏpropriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€suggested€remittitur€is€moot€because€we€haveÏalready€held€that€the€€plaintiff€is€not€entitled€to€recover€damages€for€intentionalÏmisrepresentation€and€promissory€fraud€beyond€his€five€month€period€ofÏemployment.€€As€for€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€charge€the€jury€regardingÏpunitive€damages,€that€issue€is€waived€because€the€plaintiff€failed€to€raise€theÏissue€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€T.R.A.P.€3(e).Ì€à@ àCONCLUSIONÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€inÍpart,€reversed€in€part,€and€remanded.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€on€theÏjury€award€to€plaintiff€of€$40,403€for€breach€of€contract€is€affirmed.€€The€awardÏof€discretionary€costs€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€recalculation€in€accordanceÏwith€this€opinion.€€The€award€of€damages€for€misrepresentation,€promissoryÏfraud,€and€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€is€reversed.€€Costs€of€the€appealÏare€assessed€one„half€to€plaintiff€and€one„half€to€defendants.€€ÌÓ3 Óà 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:ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌ____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óœÔ€3ÔÔ€3Ô