ÿWPC+, …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µLÝb) w@1 4q … ” Æœ Æb Æ( Æî Æ´ 0lz 0Dæ 0J* 0Tt 0^È 0h& 0rŽ 0| 0†| 0 1u’ 0d BkU>ˆB)Æ D3ïDC" AOeU*´ÞJìu6W«î˜!v~œ"vÓ$ A©í) 0@–* D+Ö* 0K+ AOL+ 0D›+ D/ß+ B,˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLLÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT- ù- âðEñkeòóDôõö÷Ó€DÒ 3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 'ÿÿdxd((((7Border 1dd TV,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌApril€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€'ôÔThere€were€three€other€plaintiffs€in€this€case:€Echlin,€Inc.,€Friction€Materials,€Inc.€and€Brake€Systems,ÏInc.€€Echlin,€Inc.€owns€the€other€plaintiffs.Ì kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔ€€UBS€utilizes€valuable€trademarks.€€Those€trademarks€are€ð ðGray„rockðð€and€ð ðBT.ðð€€The€registered€owner€ofÏthe€BT€trademark€is€Friction€Materials,€Inc.,€and€the€registered€owner€of€Gray„rock€is€Brake€Systems,€Inc.€€The€brandÏname€of€the€lining€is€printed€on€the€underside€of€the€brake€lining.€€UBS€has€expended€substantial€sums€over€the€yearsÏto€promote€their€trademark.€€No€company€other€than€UBS€can€utilize€the€Gray„rock€and€BT€trademarks.Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€'ôÔExposure€to€fire,€water,€and€smoke€diminishes€the€integrity€and€quality€of€the€brake€linings.€€Once€theÏwater€soaks€into€the€linings,€they€must€be€placed€in€an€oven€at€350€degrees€Fahrenheit€for€twenty„four€hours.€€TheÏuse€of€wet€linings€can€result€in€ð ðrust€jacking.ðð€€This€occurs€when€moisture€is€transferred€from€the€block€to€the€metalÏand€rust€develops.€€A€wet€lining€can€come€loose€and€result€in€brake€failure.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€'ôÔIn€his€deposition,€Barr€testified€there€were€twenty„six€linings€in€each€box.€€At€trial,€he€claimed€he€had€notÏstated€there€were€twenty„six€linings€per€box€and€that€most€of€the€boxes€were€small.€€When€confronted€with€hisÏdeposition€testimony,€Barr€claimed€he€did€not€know€if€the€deposition€statement€was€true€or€not€but€that€some€of€theÏboxes€were€small.Ì äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€'ôÔIn€its€memorandum€opinion,€the€trial€court€wrote:Ìà8 àà àThe€defendant€AEP€puts€forth€several€reasons€why€this€case€should€not€be€held€anÏexceptional€one.€€First,€AEP€is€still€under€the€mistaken€impression€that€the€goods€it€traded€wereÏsalvaged€goods.€€It€continues€to€refer€to€the€brake€shoes€and€brake€linings€sold€by€Lee€Barr€asÏsalvage,€citing€that€ð ð[o]bviously€there€was€no€confusion€that€these€were€salvaged€products€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏDef.€Reply€Brief€p.2.€€The€brake€shoes€and€linings€were€not€salvage.€€They€were€specificallyÏdesignated€to€be€properly€disposed€of€in€an€approved€landfill€in€the€contract€between€AEP€andÏ[UBS].€€The€plaintiff's€research€department€decided€that€these€products€were€unfit€for€use€and€notÏsalvageable.€€Therefore,€the€products€were€not€approved€for€sale,€even€as€salvaged€goods.Ì ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€'ôÔð ðThis€Court€is€not€under€any€duty€to€minutely€search€a€voluminous€record€to€locate€and€examine€mattersÏnot€identified€by€citation€to€the€record.ðð€€òòò òEngland€v.€Burns€Stone€Co.óóó ó,€874€S.W.2d€32,€35€(Tenn.€App.€1993).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò TVU›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó T‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€vXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ#` ìú` ä œ ’X#ÓœÞ ÞÌUNITED›€BRAKE€SYSTEMS,€INC.,€dbaà à)ÌMIDLAND€GRAU€HEAVY€DUTY€à à)ÌSERVICEà àCENTER,€ECHLIN,€INC.,€à à)ÌBRAKE€SYSTEMS,€INC.€and€FRICTIONà à)ÌMATERIALS,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9610„CH„00448Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌAMERICAN€ENVIRONMENTALà à)à àNo.à à94„2864„III̜ـ ÙßR€-/,A1-j|9ÿb` ç `€€@ÿRß›PROTECTION,€INC.,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìandà àà à)Ìà àà à)ÌLEE€BARR,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à à)ÌÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌÓ  ÓÌÌPHILIP€M.€KIRKPATRICKÌJOHN€E.€ANDERSONÌStewart,€Estes€&€DonnellÌSunTrust€CenterÌ424€Church€Street,€14th€FloorÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219„2392Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEESÌÌJOE€F.€GILLESPIE,€JR.Ì6408„A€Clarksville€HighwayÌJoelton,€Tennessee€37080Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌà àLEE€BARRÌÌJOSEPH€L.€LACKEY,€JR.ÌLackey,€Rodgers,€Price€&€SnedekerÌ1230€First€American€CenterÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37238„1230€Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLANTÌà àAMERICAN€ENVIRONMENTAL€PROTECTION,€INC.ÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART,€AND€REMANDEDÌÓ  ÓÌÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌòòÓ  ÓÔ€'„ÔOPINIONóóÌÌÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÓh^` `  ä \„Xœ lxÄÐ !(#t#€%Ì%Ø'$(0*|*ˆ,Ô,à.,/81„13ˆXhÓÔ€'¼Ôà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€defendant/appellant,€American€EnvironmentalÏProtection,€Inc.€(ð ðAEPðð),€from€a€jury€verdict€rendered€in€the€Davidson€CountyÏChancery€Court.€€The€jury€determined€AEP€was€liable€to€plaintiff/appellee,ÏUnited€Brake€Systems,€Inc.€(ð ðUBSðð)× ƒ0 ××  ×,€for€misrepresentation,€conversion,€andÏunfair€competition.€€In€addition€,€the€court€directed€a€verdict€against€AEP€onÏUBS's€breach€of€contract€claim.€€The€jury€awarded€UBS€$130,892.00,€courtÏcosts,€attorney's€fees,€and€$100,000.00€in€punitive€damages.€€The€jury€alsoÏdetermined€AEP€was€liable€to€defendant/appellee,€Lee€Barr,€forÏmisrepresentation€and€awarded€him€$25,000.00€plus€legal€fees.€€The€facts€out€ofÏwhich€this€matter€arose€are€as€follows.ÌÌò òI.à àFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óÌÌà àUBS€maintained€a€facility€in€Nashville€where€it€stocked€brake€linings,Ïbrake€shoes€with€linings,€and€other€brake€hardware.€€The€facility€nearly€burnedÏdown€on€13€July€1994.€€There€were€57,040€brake€linings€stored€in€the€facility€atÏthe€time€of€the€fire.€€The€inventory€included€Gray„rock€and€BT€branded€brakeÍlinings€and€815€lined€brake€shoes€all€of€which€were€ready€to€sell.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€There€wasÏsubstantial€damage€to€the€building€and€the€contents€as€a€result€of€the€fire€and€theÏfirefighting€efforts.€€The€damage€to€the€brake€linings€was€so€severe€UBS'sÏresearch€and€development€staff€determined€the€brake€linings€did€not€meet€UBS'sÏquality€levels.× ƒ2 ××  ×ÌÌà àFollowing€the€fire,€UBS€began€obtaining€bids€for€the€demolition€of€theÏfacility€and€the€removal€of€debris.€€UBS€contacted€AEP€about€such€a€bid.€€€BillÏHalliburton€of€UBS€spoke€with€Don€Turner€of€AEP€about€a€contract.€€HalliburtonÏstated€an€essential€requirement€of€the€contract€was€that€AEP€take€the€brake€liningsÏto€a€landfill.€€He€explained€to€Turner€UBS€did€not€want€the€damaged€brakeÏlinings€containing€the€Grey„rock€and€BT€trademarks€to€get€into€the€marketplace.€€ÏTurner€told€€Halliburton€AEP€would€take€the€brake€linings€to€an€approvedÏlandfill.€€AEP€and€UBS€entered€into€a€contract€on€21€July€1994.€€AEP€preparedÏthe€contract€which€stated,€in€part,€as€follows:€ð ðAll€salvage€rights€to€all€itemsÏwithin€the€footprint€of€the€demolished€building€are€granted€to€[AEP]€WITH€THEÏEXCEPTION€OF€ANY€AND€ALL€BRAKE€LININGS€WHICH€SHALL€BEÏPROPERLY€DISPOSED€OF€AT€AN€APPROVED€LANDFILL.ððÌÌà àAfter€entering€into€the€contract,€Halliburton€met€with€€Turner€and€TerryÏReeves,€also€of€AEP,€at€the€UBS€facility.€€Reeves€asked€about€the€importance€ofÍhauling€the€brake€linings€to€an€approved€landfill.€€Once€again,€HalliburtonÏexplained€UBSððs€concerns€over€products€liability€exposure€and€recognition€of€theÏregistered€trademarks.€Reeves€guaranteed€Halliburton€the€linings€would€go€to€theÏlandfill.€€ÌÌà àOn€Saturday€morning,€23€July€1994,€€Halliburton€and€two€other€UBSÏemployees€removed€5,600€brake€linings€from€the€building.€€According€to€ÏHalliburton€and€a€comprehensive€inventory€control€system,€there€were€57,040Ïbrake€linings€in€the€building€on€the€date€of€the€fire.€€Thus,€there€were€51,440Ïlinings€inside€the€facility€when€Halliburton€left€on€Saturday.€€When€HalliburtonÏwent€to€the€premises€on€Monday,€25€July€1994,€it€was€evident€that€most€of€theÏcontents€of€the€facility€had€been€removed.ÌÌà àOn€that€same€Saturday,€Reeves€contacted€Lee€Barr€and€presented€him€withÏa€deal.€€Reeves€told€Barr€he€could€have€a€forklift,€parts,€and€a€compressor€inÏexchange€for€Barr's€grade„all.€€Reeves€also€told€Barr€he€could€take€the€brakeÏlinings€as€long€as€he€did€not€sell€them€in€Nashville.ÌÌà àThereafter,€Barr's€employees€began€hauling€off€materials€including€theÏbrake€linings.€According€to€Barrððs€testimony,€he€hauled€off€2,000€boxes€ofÏlinings€with€approximately€twenty„six€linings€in€each€box.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€Barr€testified€ReevesÏand€Bobby€Hargrove,€an€AEP€employee,€were€present€at€the€facility€and€sawÏBarr's€employees€loading€the€brake€linings€onto€his€truck.€€In€addition,€he€statedÏReeves€allowed€an€AEP€employee€to€help€Barr€load€the€brake€linings.€€OnÍSunday,€24€July€1994,€Hargrove€left€and€told€Barr€to€ð ðlock€the€gate.ðð€€When€BarrÏhad€finished,€he€locked€the€gate€and€left.€€Barr€later€sold€some€of€the€brakeÏlinings€in€Indiana€to€Tim€Gedeck,€Mike€Hannowsky,€and€Russellððs€Trailer€Sales.ÌÌà àAfter€AEP€completed€the€cleanup,€Scott€Howell€of€Circle€City€Friction,€aÏcompetitor€of€UBS€contacted€Halliburton.€€Howell€informed€Halliburton€that€aÏTim€Gedeck€had€approached€Howell€and€offered€to€sell€him€what€appeared€to€beÏUBS€brake€linings€in€burnt€boxes.€€After€his€conversation€with€Howell,ÏHalliburton€was€concerned€the€inferior,€unapproved€brake€linings€had€gotten€intoÏthe€marketplace.€€Halliburton€contacted€Gedeck€in€Indianapolis.€€Gedeck€advisedÏHalliburton€he€had€some€UBS€material€which€he€intended€to€sell.€€Halliburton€toldÏhim€the€linings€were€unapproved€and€were€not€to€be€sold.€€Gedeck€advisedÏHalliburton€he€was€going€to€sell€them€anyway.€€Halliburton€then€contacted€ReevesÏand€informed€him€the€brake€linings€from€the€UBS€fire€scene€had€appeared€in€theÏIndianapolis€area€and€were€being€offered€for€sale.€€Reeves€insisted€HalliburtonÏwas€mistaken€because€AEP€had€taken€the€brake€linings€to€the€landfill.€€HalliburtonÏthen€contacted€UBSððs€legal€department€who€retained€counsel€in€Indianapolis€andÏin€Nashville€in€order€to€recover€the€linings€as€quickly€as€possible.ÌÌà àUBS€filed€the€instant€suit€on€21€September€1994.€€UBS€alleged€AEP€wasÏliable€to€UBS€for€misrepresentation,€breach€of€contract,€conversion,€and€violatingÏthe€Lanham€Act.€€UBS€also€alleged€Barr€was€liable€for€violating€the€Lanham€Act.€ÏAEP€filed€an€answer,€a€cross„complaint,€and€a€counter„complaint.€€AEP€deniedÏany€wrongdoing€and€claimed€it€never€authorized€Barr€to€remove€the€brakeÏlinings€from€the€facility.€€It€alleged€Barr€was€liable€for€breach€of€contract€and€forÏviolating€the€Lanham€Act.€€Finally,€AEP€alleged€it€performed€all€the€terms€of€theÏcontract€between€it€and€UBS€and€UBS€breached€the€contract€when€it€refused€toÍpay€AEP.€€Barr€responded€and€claimed€AEP€had€authorized€him€to€take€theÏlinings.€€In€addition,€he€alleged€AEP€was€liable€to€him€for€fraud.ÌÌà àAEP€and€Barr€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€on€UBS's€Lanham€Act€claimsÏat€the€conclusion€of€UBSððs€proof€and€at€the€conclusion€of€all€the€proof.€€TheÏœchancellor€denied›€the€motions.€€At€the€close€of€all€the€proof,€UBS€moved€for€aÏdirected€verdict€on€its€breach€of€contract€claim.€€The€court€granted€UBSððs€motionÏand€also€directed€a€verdict€against€AEP€on€its€breach€of€contract€claim€againstÏUBS.€€The€remainder€of€the€case€went€to€the€jury.€€The€jury€made€the€followingÏfindings:€1)€UBS€established€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€AEP€wasÏliable€for€misrepresentation,€conversion,€and€unfair€competition;€2)€UBS€did€notÏestablish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€Barr€was€liable€for€conversionÏand€unfair€competition;€3)€AEP€did€not€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€that€Barr€was€liable€for€breach€of€contract;€and€4)€Barr€established€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€AEP€was€liable€for€misrepresentation.€€TheÏjury€then€awarded€UBS€$130,892.00€damages€which€included€attorney's€fees,€andÏcourt€costs€and€awarded€Barr€$25,000.00€plus€attorney€fees.€€Finally,€the€juryÏdetermined€AEP's€actions€entitled€UBS€to€punitive€damages.€€After€a€separateÏhearing,€the€jury€awarded€UBS€$100,000.00€in€punitive€damages.ÌÌà àœAEP€moved›€to€set€aside€the€verdict€and€to€grant€AEP€a€new€trial€or€aÏremittitur€after€the€court€entered€its€final€judgment€in€accordance€with€the€juryÏverdict.€€UBS€filed€a€motion€requesting€discretionary€costs€and€a€motion€toÏdeclare€the€case€an€exceptional€case€so€the€court€could€award€it€attorney's€feesÏunder€the€Lanham€Act.€€Thereafter,€the€court€awarded€UBS€$3,141.75€inÏdiscretionary€costs,€declared€the€case€was€exceptional€under€the€Lanham€Act,€andÏdenied€AEP's€motions€for€a€new€trial.ÌAEP€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€24€May€1996.ÌÌò òII.à àDirected€Verdictsó óÌÌà àWhen€reviewing€a€decision€on€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€this€courtððsÏstandard€of€review€is€the€same€as€the€standard€used€by€the€trial€court€in€passingÏupon€the€motion.€€ò òòòUnderwood€v.€HCA€Health€Servs.€of€Tenn.,€Inc.,€ó óóó892ÏS.W.2d€423,€425€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€Courts€reviewing€a€motion€for€directedÏverdict€may€not€weigh€the€evidence€or€evaluate€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€ÌÓÓà8 àIn€ruling€on€the€motion,€the€court€must€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€non„moving€party.€ÏIn€other€words,€€the€court€must€remove€any€conflict€in€the€evidenceÏby€construing€it€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€non„movant€andÏdiscarding€all€countervailing€evidence.€€The€court€may€grant€theÏmotion€only€if,€after€assessing€the€evidence€according€to€theÏforegoing€standards,€it€determines€that€reasonable€minds€could€notÏdiffer€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€IfÏthere€is€any€doubt€as€to€the€proper€conclusions€to€be€drawn€fromÏthe€evidence,€the€motion€must€be€denied.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€Óòòò òEaton€v.€McLainóóó ó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994)€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÓÓà àò òA.à0 àWhether€the€court€erred€in€not€directing€a€verdict€inÏfavor€of€AEP€as€to€UBSððs€cause€of€action€under€theÏLanham€Act,€15€U.S.C.€ðððð€1114(1),€1125.€ó óÌÓ€ÓÌà àCongressððs€intent€when€enacting€the€Lanham€Act€was€ð ðto€regulateÏcommerce€within€the€control€of€Congress€by€making€actionable€the€deceptive€andÏmisleading€use€of€marks€in€such€commerce€[and]€to€protect€persons€engaged€inÏsuch€commerce€against€unfair€competition.ðð€€15€U.S.C.€ðð1127€(1988€&€Supp.Ï1992).€€The€Lanham€Act€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(1)€Any€person€who,€on€or€in€connection€with€any€goods€orÏservices,€or€any€container€for€goods,€uses€in€commerce€any€word,Íterm,€name,€symbol,€or€device,€or€any€combination€thereof,€or€anyÏfalse€description€of€origin,€false€or€misleading€description€of€fact,Ïor€false€or€misleading€representation€of€fact,€which€„Ìà8 àà0 àà à(A)€is€likely€to€cause€confusion,€or€to€cause€mistake,€or€toÏdeceive€as€to€the€affiliation,€connection,€or€association€of€suchÏperson€with€another€person,€or€as€to€the€origin,€sponsorship,€orÏapproval€of€his€or€her€goods,€services,€or€commercial€activitiesÏby€another€person,€orÌà8 àà0 àà à(B)€in€commercial€advertising€or€promotion,€misrepresentsÏthe€nature,€characteristics,€qualities,€or€geographic€origin€of€hisÏor€her€or€another€personððs€goods,€services,€or€commercialÏactivities,Ìà8 àshall€be€liable€in€a€civil€action€by€any€person€who€believes€that€heÏor€she€is€or€is€likely€to€be€damaged€by€such€act.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€Óòòò òId.ó óóó€ðð1125(a)(1)€(Supp.€1992).€€Section€1114€of€the€Lanham€Act€provides:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€Any€person€who€shall,€without€the€consent€of€the€registrant€„Ìà8 àà0 àà à(a)€use€in€commerce€any€reproduction,€counterfeit,€copy,€orÏcolorable€imitation€of€a€registered€mark€in€connection€with€theÏsale,€offering€for€sale,€distribution,€or€advertising€of€any€goodsÏor€services€on€or€in€connection€with€which€such€use€is€likely€toÏcause€confusion,€or€to€cause€mistake,€or€to€deceive;€orÌà à.€.€.€.Ìà8 àshall€be€liable€in€a€civil€action€by€the€registrant€for€the€remediesÏhereinafter€provided.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€Óòòò òId.óóó ó€ðð€1114(1)€(1988€&€Supp.€1992).ÌÌà àAEP€insists€the€provisions€of€the€Lanham€Act€did€not€apply€to€the€facts€ofÏthis€case€because€everybody€knew€the€linings€were€salvaged€from€a€fire€inÏNashville.€€AEP€relies€on€ò òòòAlfred€Dunhill€Ltd.€v.€Interstate€Cigar€Co.óóó ó,€499ÏF.2d€232€(2d€Cir.€1974),€for€the€proposition€that€the€sale€of€salvaged€materialsÏdoes€not€violate€the€Lanham€Act.€€The€facts€of€òòò òDunhillóóó ó,€however,€areÏdistinguishable€from€the€facts€of€this€case.€€In€òòò òDunhillóóó ó,€the€lawful€owner€of€theÏgoods€at€issue€voluntarily€permitted€the€insurance€company€to€salvage€and€sell€theÏgoods.€€òòò òId.€óóó óat€234.€€In€this€case,€UBS€took€all€the€necessary€steps€in€their€contractÍwith€AEP€to€ensure€that€it€conveyed€no€salvage€rights€in€the€linings€to€AEP€andÏthat€none€of€the€linings€would€ever€be€sold€as€salvage€or€otherwise.€€AEP's€claimÏthe€fact€that€the€purchasers€understood€the€linings€were€salvaged€from€a€NashvilleÏfire€in€no€way€negates€the€application€of€the€Lanham€Act€because€the€goods€wereÏnot€salvage.ÌÌà àAEP's€second€argument€is€that€UBS€was€not€entitled€to€monetary€damagesÏbecause€the€Lanham€Act€requires€a€plaintiff€to€prove€actual€confusion€to€receiveÏmonetary€damages€and€UBS€failed€to€make€such€a€showing.€€Assuming€actualÏconfusion€is€a€necessary€element,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€UBS€satisfiedÏits€burden.€€To€explain,€AEP€argues€ð ðeverybody€that€had€any€contact€with€thisÏproduct€knew€that€it€was€salvage€from€a€fire€or€auction€in€Nashville.ðð€€BecauseÏthe€linings€were€not€salvage,€a€person€who€believed€the€linings€were€salvageÏwould€have€been€actually€confused.€€In€addition,€the€record€established€GedeckÏand€Hannowsky€were€actually€confused€as€to€other€aspects€of€the€transaction.€ÏThey€believed€the€linings€were€quality€products€and€did€not€know€UBS€hadÏdeemed€the€linings€unfit€for€sale€and€had€contracted€with€AEP€to€take€them€to€aÏlandfill.€€Second,€they€believed€Barr€properly€obtained€the€brake€linings€and€hadÏthe€authority€to€sell€them.€€To€the€contrary,€Barr€could€not€have€had€any€title€toÏthe€linings€because€AEP€did€not€have€any€title.€€As€explained€by€the€trial€court,Ïthe€contract,€as€a€matter€of€law,€clearly€stated€AEP€had€no€salvage€rightsÏwhatsoever€to€the€linings.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€As€a€converter,€AEP€obtained€no€title€to€the€liningsÍand€could€not€have€transferred€any€title€to€Barr.€€òòò òGoodwin€v.€Taenzeróóó ó,€122ÏTenn.€101,€119€S.W.€1133€(1909);€òòò òMcDaniel€v.€Adamsó óóó,€11€S.W.€939,€940,€87ÏTenn.€756,€757„58€(1889).€€The€fact€that€Gedeck€and€Hannowsky€believed€theyÏreceived€quality€products€and€Barr€had€authority€to€sell€the€linings€was€actualÏconfusion.ÌÌà àIt€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€chancery€court€did€not€err€in€failingÏto€direct€a€verdict€in€favor€of€AEP.€€There€was€sufficient€evidence€in€the€recordÏsuch€that€jurors€could€reasonably€infer€actual€confusion.€€Given€such€evidence,€itÏwould€have€been€error€for€the€court€to€have€directed€a€verdict€in€AEP's€favor.ÌÌÓÓà àò òB.à0 àWhether€the€court€erred€in€directing€a€verdict€in€favor€ofÏUBS€and€against€AEP€on€the€breach€of€contract€claims.ó óÌÓ€ÓÌà àTaking€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€AEP,€theÏnon„moving€party,€there€were€three€different€breaches€of€the€contract€betweenÏUBS€and€AEP.€€UBS€breached€the€contract€by€interfering€with€AEPððs€exclusiveÏcontrol€of€the€facility€and€by€failing€to€compensate€AEP€for€its€services.€€AEPÏbreached€the€contract€when€it€failed€to€take€all€the€linings€to€a€landfill.ÌÌà àð ð[T]here€can€be€no€recovery€for€damages€on€the€theory€of€breach€ofÏcontract€by€the€party€who€himself€breached€the€contract.ðð€€ò òòòSanta€BarbaraÏCapital€Corp.€v.€World€Christian€Radio€Found.,€Inc.óó,€ó ó491€S.W.2d€852,Ï857€(Tenn.€App.€1972).€€€ð ðA€party€who€has€materially€breached€a€contract€is€notÏentitled€to€damages€stemming€from€the€other€partyððs€later€material€breach€of€theÏsame€contract.€€Thus,€in€cases€where€both€parties€have€not€fully€performed,€it€isÏnecessary€for€the€courts€to€determine€which€party€is€chargeable€with€the€firstÏuncured€material€breach.ðð€€òòò òMcClain€v.€Kimbrough€Const.€Co.ó óóó,€806€S.W.2dÍ194,€199€(Tenn.€App.€1990)€.€€The€determination€of€whether€a€breach€is€materialÏrequires€consideration€of€the€following€factors:ÌÓÓà8 àà à(a)€the€extent€to€which€the€injured€party€will€be€deprived€of€theÏbenefit€which€he€reasonably€expected;Ìà8 àà à(b)€the€extent€to€which€the€injured€party€can€be€adequatelyÏcompensated€for€the€part€of€that€benefit€of€which€he€will€beÏdeprived;Ìà8 àà à(c)€the€extent€to€which€the€party€failing€to€perform€or€to€offer€toÏperform€will€suffer€forfeiture;Ìà8 àà à(d)€the€likelihood€that€the€party€failing€to€perform€or€to€offer€toÏperform€will€cure€his€failure,€taking€account€of€all€theÏcircumstances€including€any€reasonable€assurances;Ìà8 àà à(e)€the€extent€to€which€the€behavior€of€the€party€failing€toÏperform€or€to€offer€to€perform€comports€with€standards€of€goodÏfaith€and€fair€dealing.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€Óòòò òId.ó óóó€(quoting€Restatement€(Second)€of€Contracts€ðð€241€(1979)).ÌÌà àAfter€applying€the€law€to€the€facts,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€err.€€To€explain,€the€breach€resulting€from€UBSððs€failure€toÏprovide€AEP€with€exclusive€control€of€the€facility€was€not€material.€€There€wasÏno€evidence€that€UBSððs€actions€deprived€AEP€of€the€benefits€it€reasonablyÏexpected€to€receive.€€In€addition,€there€was€no€evidence€that€UBS€acted€in€anyÏmanner€other€than€in€good€faith.€€UBSððs€failure€to€pay€and€AEPððs€failure€to€dumpÏthe€linings€in€a€landfill€were€both€uncured€and€material€breaches.€€AEPððs€breach,Ïhowever,€occurred€prior€to€UBSððs.€€Thus,€it€follows€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏgranted€a€directed€verdict€in€favor€of€UBS€and€against€AEP€because€AEP€couldÏnot€recover€for€breach€of€contract€based€on€conduct€occurring€after€havingÏmaterially€breached€the€contract€itself.ÌÌà àAEP€also€claims€the€court€should€not€have€directed€a€verdict€because€itÏshould€have€allowed€the€jury€to€consider€its€defense€of€impossibility€ofÍperformance.€€This€claim€is€without€merit.€€ð ðImpossibility€of€performance€causedÏby€the€promisor€or€by€those€in€privity€with€him,€or€by€developments€which€heÏcould€have€prevented€or€avoided€or€remedied€by€appropriate€correctiveÏmeasures,€does€not€exclude€him€from€liability€for€his€nonperformance€of€theÏcontract.ðð€€ò òòòTucker€v.€Hundleyó óóó,€452€S.W.2d€658,€660€(Tenn.€App.€1969).€€AEPÏcould€have€fully€preformed€the€contract€and€taken€the€linings€to€the€landfill.€€ItsÏagents€admitted€such.€€It€could€have€had€a€representative€present€to€control€theÏpremises€and€prevent€Lee€Barr€from€taking€the€linings.€€There€was€noÏimpossibility.€€Any€impediment€to€full€performance€was€of€AEPððs€own€making.€ÏIn€such€a€case,€impossibility€is€no€defense.€€The€court€properly€directed€a€verdictÏagainst€AEP.ÌÌò òIII.à àWhether€the€chancery€court€erred€in€not€granting€AEP€a€newÏtrial.ó óÌÌà àAEP€claims€the€court€erred€in€not€granting€it€a€new€trial€for€eightÏdifferent€reasons.€€We€address€each€reason€separately.ÌÌà àò òA.à0 àThere€was€no€proof€that€AEP€violated€the€Lanham€Act.€ó óÌÌà àThe€proof€clearly€established€AEP€violated€the€Lanham€Act.€€SectionÏ1125(a)€makes€any€misrepresentation€of€fact€which€results€in€confusion€as€toÏaffiliation,€connection,€association,€source,€origin,€sponsorship€or€approvalÏactionable.€€Here,€the€evidence€established€those€who€purchased€the€brake€liningsÏwere€not€told€the€following:€€1)€UBS€determined€the€brake€linings€were€damagedÏor€inferior;€2)€UBS€intended€to€send€the€brake€linings€to€a€landfill;€3)€AEPÏconverted€the€brake€linings€and€had€no€rights€whatsoever€to€them;€4)€UBS€hadÍtaken€steps€to€disassociate€itself€with€the€linings€such€that€the€linings€were€to€haveÏbeen€buried€in€a€landfill€to€assure€quality€control;€and€5)€the€product€carried€noÏexpress€or€implied€warranties€by€the€manufacturer.€€€ÌÓÓà8 àà àA€product€is€not€truly€ð ðgenuineðð€unless€it€is€manufactured€andÏdistributed€under€quality€controls€established€by€the€manufacturer.€ÏThe€Lanham€Trademark€Act€affords€the€trademark€holder€theÏright€to€control€the€quality€of€the€goods€manufactured€and€soldÏunder€its€trademark.€€€ð ðThe€actual€quality€of€the€goods€isÏirrelevant;€it€is€the€control€of€the€quality€that€a€trademark€holder€isÏentitled€to€maintain.ððÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€Óò òòòShell€Oil€Co.€v.€Commercial€Petroleum,€Inc.ó óóó€928€F.2d€104,€107€(4th€Cir.Ï1991)€(quoting€òòò òEl€Greco€Leather€Prods.€Co.€v.€Shoe€Worldóóó ó,€806€F.2d€Ï392,€395€(2d€Cir.€1986)).€€The€linings€Barr€sold€were€not€genuine€Grey„rock€orÏBT€linings€according€to€this€definition€because€they€were€not€distributed€underÏUBSððs€quality€controls.€€òòò òSee€id.óóó ó€€Therefore,€the€purchasers€were€actuallyÏconfused€as€to€the€genuineness€as€well€as€to€the€origin€of€the€linings.ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€UBS€proved€their€claim€under€the€Lanham€Act.€ÏThe€arguments€of€AEP€to€the€contrary€fail.€€€AEPððs€actions€prevented€UBS€fromÏcontrolling€the€quality€of€its€goods€sold€under€its€trademark€and€associated€UBSÏwith€an€unapproved,€inferior€product.€€UBS€had€no€desire€to€have€theirÏtrademark€and€reputation€associated€with€a€product€AEP€was€required€to€take€toÏthe€landfill.€€AEP€was€responsible€for€placing€unapproved,€inferior€goodsÏbearing€UBSððs€trademark€and€other€indicia€of€UBS€into€the€stream€of€commerce.€ÏThe€verdict€of€the€jury€regarding€the€Lanham€Act€was€in€all€respects€properÏgiven€the€facts€and€the€law.€€It€was€not€error€to€deny€a€new€trial€to€AEP€on€theÏLanham€Act€issue.ÌÌÓÓà àò òB.ó óà0 àò òThe€juryððs€verdict€was€inconsistent€in€that€it€found€AEPÏhad€violated€the€Lanham€Act,€but€also€found€Lee€Barr€hadÍnot€violated€the€Lanham€Act.ó óÌÌÓ€Óà àAEP€insists€the€chancery€court€should€have€granted€a€new€trial€because€theÏjury€was€ð ðobviously€confusedðð€on€the€Lanham€Act€claim.€€AEP€has€failed€to€citeÏany€case€law€for€this€proposition€and€did€not€provide€this€court€with€any€proofÏthe€jury€was€confused€or€did€not€follow€the€courtððs€charge€on€the€Lanham€ActÏclaim€against€AEP.€€We€have€fully€discussed€the€Lanham€Act€and€think€it€is€clearÏAEP€is€liable€for€its€violations€of€the€Lanham€Act.€€We€find€nothing€in€thisÏrecord€establishing€the€jury€was€confused.ÌÌò òÓÓà àC.à0 àThe€juryððs€initial€award€in€the€amount€of€$130,892.00Ïdollars€and€its€award€of€punitive€damages€was€improper.ó óÌÌÓ€Óà àThe€jury€awarded€UBS€compensatory€damages,€attorney's€fees,€andÏpunitive€damages.€€AEP€claims€the€compensatory€damage€award€was€improperÏbecause€€the€jury€relied€solely€on€the€damages€proved€by€UBS€for€the€LanhamÏAct€violation€including€€attorney's€fees.€€AEP€also€argues€the€punitive€damagesÏwere€improper€because€they€were€based€on€the€jury's€compensatory€award€whichÏwas€based€on€the€violations€of€the€Lanham€Act€and€the€Lanham€Act€does€notÏprovide€for€punitive€damages.€€Finally,€AEP€argues€the€award€of€attorneyððs€feesÏwas€improper.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€error€in€the€award€of€damages.€€As€to€the€compensatoryÏdamages,€there€is€no€evidence€the€jury€based€its€award€solely€on€the€Lanham€ActÏviolations.€€At€the€close€of€the€trial,€the€court€entered€a€directed€verdict€in€favorÏof€UBS€on€its€breach€of€contract€claim€against€AEP.€€In€addition,€the€juryÏdetermined€on€the€verdict€form€that€AEP€was€liable€to€UBS€as€a€result€of€AEP'sÏmisrepresentation,€conversion,€and€unfair€competition.€€Thereafter,€the€juryÏawarded€UBS€$130,892.00€plus€court€costs€and€additional€attorney's€fees.€€TheÍaward€was€in€response€to€the€following€question€on€the€verdict€form:€ð ðWhatÏdamages€do€you€award€[UBS]€against€[AEP]?ðð€€There€is€no€reason€to€believe€theÏjury's€award€was€intended€to€compensate€UBS€for€anything€but€all€of€the€actionsÏcommitted€by€AEP.€€Moreover,€AEP€has€failed€to€cite€any€cases€supporting€theÏproposition€that€the€compensatory€damages€were€improper€under€the€state€lawÏclaims€or€the€Lanham€Act€claim.€€ÌÌà àUBS€argues€and€we€agree€that€punitive€damages€were€appropriate€in€thisÏcase.€€The€jury€made€the€determination€UBS€was€entitled€to€punitive€damages.€ÏThey€determined€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€AEP€acted€intentionally,Ïmaliciously,€recklessly,€or€fraudulently,€and€the€trial€court€agreed.€€AEPððs€claimÏthat€punitive€damages€were€improper€is,€in€our€opinion,€incorrect.€€There€was€anÏabundance€of€proof€of€fraud,€conversion,€and€other€intentional€acts€by€AEP.€€TheÏcourt€properly€charged€the€jury€as€to€punitive€damages€and€held€a€proper€hearingÏduring€which€the€jury€heard€applicable€financial€information.€€There€was€noÏerror.ÌÌà àAs€to€the€attorneyððs€fees,€the€court€charged€the€jury€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà àUnder€the€Lanham€Act,€if€liability€exists,€the€Court€may€awardÏattorney€fees€in€an€exceptional€case.€€An€exceptional€case€is€oneÏwherein€the€tortuous€actions€of€the€defendant€are€malicious,Ïfraudulent,€deliberate€or€willful.€€If€you€find€that€the€actions€of€oneÏor€more€of€the€defendants€in€this€case€violated€either€of€the€sectionsÏin€the€Lanham€Act€referred€to€above,€and€that€such€conduct€wasÏmalicious,€fraudulent€deliberate€or€willful,€you€shall€so€indicate,Ïfor€the€courtððs€purpose€on€your€jury€verdict€form.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€ÓThe€jury€indicated€on€the€verdict€form€UBS€had€established€their€case€againstÏAEP€for€unfair€competition€and€UBS€should€recover€all€attorneyððs€fees.€€In€hisÏmemorandum€opinion€of€26€April€1996,€the€trial€court€concluded€there€wasÏoverwhelming€proof€that€AEP€acted€intentionally,€deliberately,€and€with€badÍfaith.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€determined€this€to€be€an€exceptional€case€underÏthe€Lanham€Act€and€awarded€attorneyððs€fees.€€We€can€find€no€error.ÌÌÓÓà àò òD.à0 àThe€court's€instructions€as€to€the€directed€verdict€in€favorÏof€UBS€confused€the€juryó óÌÓ€ÓÌà àAEP€argues€the€court€failed€to€properly€explain€to€the€jury€its€reasons€forÏdirecting€the€verdict€on€the€breach€of€contract€issue.€€Specifically,€AEP€contendsÏthe€courtððs€instructions€failed€to€properly€explain€the€effect€of€the€directed€verdictÏon€Barrððs€misrepresentation€claim€against€AEP.€€We€disagree.€€The€court€notÏonly€explained€why€it€granted€the€directed€verdict,€but€made€it€clear€the€onlyÏissue€it€decided€was€the€contract€issue€between€UBS€and€AEP.€€The€chanceryÏcourt€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àI€do€need€to€explain€one€thing€to€you€before€we€have€closingÏarguments.€€à àThere€is€a€procedure€known€as€a€directed€verdict€inÏwhich€the€Court€can€decide€a€particular€issue€or€part€of€a€case€orÏall€of€the€case€if€the€Court€determines€there€are€no€facts€in€dispute.€ÏIn€this€case,€I€have€decided€that€[UBS]€has€proven€its€claim€againstÏ[AEP]€on€the€contract€claim,€breach€of€contract.€€Ìà8 àà àThe€contract,€you€will€recall,€was€that€it€required€[AEP]€to€takeÏthe€brake€shoes€to€the€landfill.€€They€did€not€get€to€the€landfill,€forÏwhatever€reason,€which€youððll€decide,€my€conclusion€is€œthat€that›Ïconstitutes€a€breach€of€the€contract€and€as€a€result,€that€claim,€youÏwill€no€longer€have€to€decide,€that€part€of€the€suit.Ìà8 àà àLikewise,€you€will€not€have€to€decide€the€part€of€the€suit€inÏwhich€[AEP]€has€sued€[UBS]€for€the€contract€price€because€havingÏbreached€the€contract€itself,€[AEP]€is€not€entitled€to€recover€theÏcontract€price.€€Other€than€that,€all€the€other€parts€of€the€case€willÏbe€for€you€to€decide.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€ÓIt€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€these€instructions€properly€informed€the€jurorsÏof€their€duties.€€In€addition,€the€verdict€form€included€a€space€for€the€juryððsÏdecision€in€Barrððs€misrepresentation€claim€against€AEP€and€did€not€contain€anyÏquestions€regarding€AEPððs€and€UBSððs€breach€of€contract€claims.€€AEPððsÍargument€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓà àò òE.ó óà0 àò òThe€argument€of€UBS's€counsel€was€erroneous€and€theÏconduct€of€Lee€Barr€and€his€relatives€during€the€course€ofÏthe€trial€were€prejudicial€to€AEP€resulting€in€a€verdictÏbased€upon€passion,€prejudice,€and€caprice.€ó óÌÓ€ÓÌà àAEP€makes€the€following€argument€in€its€brief:ÌÓÓà8 àà àTo€further€compound€the€ultimate€effect€of€the€Court€directing€aÏverdict€against€Defendant€AEP€the€Plaintiff's€counsel€made€aÏclosing€argument€that€was€highly€prejudicial€and€totally€outside€ofÏthe€record€that€stated€as€follows:Ìà8 àà8 àI€need€to€talk€to€you€about€the€damages€in€this€case.€€We€haveÏproven,€we€submit,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,Ïbreach€of€contract€òòwhich€the€Court€has€directed€a€verdict€on,Ïfraud,€conversion€and€unfair€competition€under€the€LanhamÏActóó€by€false€designation€of€origin€and€trademark€infringementÏwithout€the€quality€control€of€the€Plaintiffs.€€It€is€for€theÏPlaintiff€to€determine€that€specific€quality€control.€€They€didÏso€and€the€Defendants€actions€violated€the€Lanham€Act.Ï(emphasis€added)ÌÌÓ€ÓAEP€argues€the€underlined€language€ð ðwas€so€highly€prejudicial€and€inaccurate€theÏCourt€should€have€granted€a€new€trial€in€this€cause.ðð€€It€is€the€opinion€of€thisÏcourt€that€the€language€quoted€above€is€not€misleading€particularly€if€theÏunderlined€portion€is€read€in€conjunction€with€the€rest€of€the€sentence.€€Once€theÏentire€sentence€is€read,€it€becomes€clear€UBS's€attorney€was€simply€stating€UBSÏhad€satisfied€its€burden€as€to€all€of€the€claims€and€the€court€had€directed€a€verdictÏas€to€one€of€those€claims.€€Such€a€statement€is€neither€inaccurate€nor€highlyÏprejudicial.ÌÌà àAEP€also€contends€the€actions€of€Lee€Barr€and€his€family€prejudicedÏAEP's€case.€€Specifically,€AEP€argues€on€one€occasion€Reeves€noticed€the€Barr'sÍcarrying€on€a€conversation€with€a€juror€about€a€mutual€friend.€€AEP€claims:€€ð ðInÏview€of€this€verdict€an€inference€can€be€drawn€that€this€type€of€improper€contactÏwith€the€jury€was€prejudicial€to€AEP.ðð€€We€do€not€believe€such€an€inference€canÏbe€so€easily€drawn.€€We€find€nothing€in€this€record€to€suggest€that€the€juryÏrendered€a€verdict€based€upon€passion,€prejudice,€or€caprice.€€To€the€contrary,Ïwe€are€of€the€opinion€the€jury€verdict€was€in€all€respects€fully€supported€by€theÏevidence.ÌÌÓÓà àò òF.ó óà0 àò òThe€evidence€as€to€the€damages€sustained€from€loss€ofÏprofit€by€UBS€was€entirely€speculative.€€ó óÌÓ€ÓÌà àð ð[L]ost€or€expected€profits€are€recoverable€as€damages€for€breach€ofÏcontract,€provided,€they€can€be€proved€with€reasonable€certainty,€and€are€not€inÏfact€remote€or€speculative.ðð€€ò òòòMorristown€Lincoln€Mercury,€Inc.€v.ÏLotspeich€Publishing€Co.ó óóó,€42€Tenn.€App.€92,€102,€298€S.W.2d€788,€793Ï(1956).€€It€is€undisputed€that€for€purchasers€to€obtain€BT€or€Gray„rock€liningsÏother€than€those€AEP€converted,€the€purchasers€would€have€had€to€purchase€theÏlinings€through€an€authorized€distributor€of€UBS.€€It€is€also€undisputed€that€UBSÏwould€have€manufactured€and€sold€those€linings.€€Thus,€the€sales€of€the€liningsÏwhich€AEP€converted€and€which€were€not€recovered€displaced€other€UBS€sales.ÌÌà àUBS€presented€proof€regarding€its€inventory€system€at€trial.€€The€lastÏinventory€taken€prior€to€the€fire€was€admitted€in€evidence€and€inventoryÏdocuments€were€referred€to€by€€Halliburton.€€€The€testimony€revealed€that€onÏSaturday€there€were€51,440€linings€to€be€taken€to€the€landfill€and€on€WednesdayÏthere€were€approximately€3,200€linings€at€the€front€of€the€building.€€UBSÏrecovered€19,220€linings€from€Gedeck€and€Barr,€but€never€recovered€theÏremaining€29,020€linings.€€Additionally,€UBS€never€recovered€200€pairs€ofÍcomplete€heavy€duty€brake€shoes€which€Barr€sold€to€Russellððs€Trailer€Sales.€ÏThere€was€clear€and€competent€evidence€regarding€the€average€price€per€set,€theÏpercentage€profit,€and€the€net€profit€per€set.€€This€evidence€proves€with€sufficientÏcertainty€the€amount€of€lost€profits.€€Finally,€the€court€charged€the€jury€as€to€theÏlaw€of€lost€profits€under€the€Lanham€Act.€€The€court€specifically€instructed€theÏjury€that€speculative€damages€were€not€permitted.€€He€stated:€ð ðYou€are€notÏpermitted€to€award€a€party€speculative€damages,€which€means€compensation€forÏfuture€loss€or€harm€which,€although€possible,€is€conjectural€or€not€reasonablyÏcertain.ðð€€The€court€charged€the€jury€that€UBS€had€the€burden€of€establishing€byÏa€preponderance€of€the€evidence€all€facts€necessary€to€prove€their€claims€andÏdamages.ÌÌà àMoreover,€we€find€no€merit€to€AEPððs€argument€that€no€consideration€wasÏgiven€to€the€fact€that€some€linings€were€at€the€facility€on€Wednesday,€28€JulyÏ1994.€€€Halliburton€testified€that€there€were€approximately€3,200€linings€in€theÏfacility€on€28€July€and€that€UBSððs€computation€of€lost€profits€assumed€AEP€tookÏ3,200€linings€to€the€landfill.€€The€truck€drivers€testified€on€behalf€of€AEP€andÏpresented€no€evidence€to€contradict€Halliburtonððs€testimony.€€AEPððs€argumentsÏare€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓà àò òG.à0 àThere€was€no€proof€in€the€record€to€support€the€jury'sÏverdict€of€$25,000.00ó ó€ò òin€favor€of€Lee€Barró óÌÌÓ€Óà àIt€is€AEPððs€contention€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€granting€it€a€newÏtrial€or€a€remittitur€because€the€juryððs€verdict€ð ðwas€totally€speculative€and€notÏfounded€on€any€evidence€in€the€record.ðð€€ð ðCourts€are€encouraged€to€exerciseÏcaution€in€ordering€a€new€trial€based€on€the€size€of€a€jury€verdict€and€should,€if€atÏall€possible,€utilize€the€remedy€of€remittitur.ðð€€òòò òThrailkill€v.€Thrailkillóóó ó,€879ÍS.W.2d€836,€840€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€chancery€court€correctly€denied€PlaintiffsððÏmotion€for€a€new€trial€on€this€issue,€however;€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€thatÏthe€chancery€court€should€have€entered€a€remittitur.€€When€reviewing€a€juryÏaward€approved€by€the€chancery€court€this€court€follows€the€standard€of€reviewÏset€forth€in€Rule€13(d)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€atÏ841,€843;€òòò òsee€Benson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€Elec.€Coop.óóó ó,€868€S.W.2d€630,Ï640€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€That€rule€provides:ÌÓÓà8 à€€(d)€Findings€of€Fact€in€Civil€Actions.€€Unless€otherwise€requiredÏby€statute,€review€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€in€civilÏactions€shall€be€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€the€correctness€of€the€finding,Ïunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Findings€ofÏfact€by€a€jury€in€civil€actions€shall€be€set€aside€only€if€there€is€noÏmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.ÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€(West€1996).ÌÌà àð ðThe€proper€measure€of€damages€for€fraud€is€that€the€injured€party€shouldÏbe€compensated€for€actual€injuries€sustained€by€placing€him€or€her€in€the€sameÏposition€he€or€she€would€have€been€had€the€fraud€not€occurred.€€A€plaintiff€whoÏalleges€fraud€bears€the€burden€of€proving€damages.ðð€€òòò òHarrogate€Corp.€v.ÏSystems€Sales€Corp.ó óóó,€915€S.W.2d€812,€817€(Tenn.€App.€1995)€(citationsÏomitted).€€The€evidence€revealed€the€following.€€Barr€purchased€the€grade„allÏgiven€to€Reeves€pursuant€to€the€trade€between€Reeves€and€Barr€for€approximatelyÏ$10,500.00.€€Barr€testified€the€value€of€the€grade„all€was€between€$25,000.00€andÏ$30,000.00.€€Reeves€valued€the€grade„all€at€$18,000.00.€€Pursuant€to€the€trade,ÏBarr€received€certain€tools€and€$16,000.00€from€the€sale€of€a€tow€motor€and€theÏbrake€linings.€€Finally,€Barr€and€his€daughter€testified€that€the€Barrððs€and€eightÏemployees€worked€many€hours€removing€items€from€the€facility.€€In€addition,ÏBarr€testified€that€he€incurred€additional€damages€when€the€frame€to€one€of€hisÍtrucks€broke€under€the€weight€of€the€linings.ÌÌà àThus,€assuming€the€grade„all€was€worth€$30,000.00,€Barr€lost€$14,000.00Ïfrom€the€trade€and€incurred€certain€other€expenses.€€The€problem€is€neither€partyÏhas€cited€any€portions€of€the€record€which€evidence€the€amounts€of€these€otherÏexpenses.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€From€Barrððs€testimony€we€know€that€he€and€his€family€gave€up€theirÏtime,€he€had€employees€to€compensate,€and€had€to€pay€for€truck€repairs.€€TheÏproblem€is€that€neither€this€court,€the€chancery€court,€nor€the€jury€knew€the€valueÏof€these€expenses.€€In€other€words,€Barrððs€damages€were€$14,000.00€plus€ð ðX,ððÏand€the€jury€determined€ð ðXðð€equaled€$11,000.00.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€courtÏthat€there€is€no€material€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€this€finding€and€theÏchancery€court€erred€in€not€entering€a€remittitur.ÌÌÓÓà àò òH.à0 àThe€court€failed€to€charge€the€jury€with€AEP's€requestÏnumber€four.ó óÌÓ€ÓÌà àAEPððs€final€argument€is€the€court€should€have€granted€it€a€new€trialÏbecause€it€failed€to€charge€the€jury€with€AEPððs€fourth€request.€€AEP€argues€itsÏfourth€request€ð ðwould€have€in€part€given€some€explanation€of€the€Courts€[sic]Ïaction€in€directing€the€verdict.ðð€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€any€error€onÏthe€part€of€the€chancery€court€in€failing€to€charge€the€jury€with€AEPððs€fourthÏrequest€is€harmless.€€To€explain,€given€our€conclusion€as€to€AEPððs€other€issues,€itÏis€clear€the€chancery€courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury€sufficiently€explained€theÏjurorsðð€duties.€€Thus,€it€was€not€necessary€to€provide€any€further€explanation.€€IfÏthere€were€any€error,€it€was€harmless€and€not€a€basis€for€a€new€trial.€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌò òIV.à àConclusionó óÌÌà àTherefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€is€affirmed€inÏpart,€reversed€in€part,€and€remanded.€€On€remand,€the€chancery€court€shall€enterÏa€remittitur€reducing€the€award€to€Lee€Barr€by€$5,000.00.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€defendant/appellant,€American€Environmental€Protection,€Inc.,€andÏdefendant/appellee,€Lee€Barr.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€J.Ì