ÿWPCO …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) 8 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Þ 0h< 0r¤ 0| 0†’ 0 1u¨ U, 0dI U,­ U*Ù B)DC, AMo ¼ BÉv~ævÓd D37 0@j AOªÆù 0D¿ D/ B2˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - åEæçDèUéUêDëDìíÓ€÷Gav 3|x÷2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJune€14,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€÷XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›DELOY€WINNINGHAM,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9509„CH„00421ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àClay€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#$";+'h|Õ` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€3137ÌMAYFIELD€BROWN€andà àà àà à)ÌE.€R.€MCLERRAN,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€CLAY€COUNTYÌAT€CELINA,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€JOHN€MADDUX,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌJOHN€PHILIP€PARSONSÌMADEWELL,€JARED,€HALFACRE€&€WILLIAMSÌ230€North€Washington€AvenueÌCookeville,€Tennessee€38501Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌJAMES€D.€WHITE,€JR.Ì101€Green€StreetÌCelina,€Tennessee€38551Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌLEWIS,€J.ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€ „ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€ XÔÌÌà àà àThis€is€an€action€œfor€specific€performance€and/or€damages€arisingÏfrom€an€alleged€fraudulent›€inducement€to€œcontract.›€€The€lower€court€dismissed€theÏplaintiffððs€claim.€€We€œaffirm.›ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€plaintiff€entered€into€an€agreement€to€purchase€a€lot€in€CelinaÏrunning€along€Highway€53€for€approximately€300€feet.€€The€sellers€actually€did€notÏown€the€subject€property€but€had€an€option€to€purchase€it€from€the€Bank€of€Celina.€ÏAfter€the€parties€signed€the€agreement,€the€sellers€notified€the€buyer€that€theyÏcould€not€sell€him€the€entire€300€feet€of€frontage€because€they€needed€a€forty€footÍstrip€along€the€edge€of€the€property€for€access€to€other€property€to€the€rear.€€œTheÏbuyer€alleged€that€the›€sellers€orally€advised€œhim›€that€they€would€give€him€anÏeasement€over€the€forty€foot€strip€and€that€they€would€deed€the€strip€to€the€city€ofÏCelina€for€a€street.€€The€buyer€orally€agreed€to€these€terms.ÌÌà àà àOn€the€date€set€for€closing,€the€sellers€obtained€a€deed€from€theÏBank€of€Celina€and€conveyed€a€lot€fronting€260€feet€on€Highway€53€to€the€buyer.€ÏApproximately€two€months€later€the€sellers€conveyed€œto€the›€buyer€an€easementÏover€the€remaining€forty€foot€strip.€€The€forty€foot€strip€was€not€conveyed€to€the€cityÏof€Celina€and€the€city€did€not€build€a€œstreet›€on€it.ÌÌà àà àThe€buyer€sued€the€œsellers,›€alleging€only€that€the€sellers€failed€toÏconvey€the€forty€foot€strip€of€land€to€the€city.€€The€complaint€sought€a€finding€thatÏthe€contract€had€been€orally€amended€but€also€sought€an€order€of€specificÏperformance€of€the€original€agreement.€€In€the€alternative€the€buyer€asked€for€theÏdamages€resulting€from€the€breach.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€trial€the€buyer€introduced€the€issue€of€the€sellersððÏrepresentations€that€they€owned€the€land€when€they€only€had€an€option€toÏpurchase€it.€€Thus,€the€issue€decided€by€the€chancellor€was€whether€the€sellersÏwere€guilty€of€fraudulent€representations€that€entitled€the€buyer€to€specificÏperformance€of€the€original€agreement€or€damages€for€the€breach€of€the€amendedÍagreement.€€The€chancellor€found€that€the€sellers€did€not€make€any€fraudulentÏrepresentations€to€the€œbuyer;€and€that€the€buyer€did€not€justifiably€rely€on€anyÏrepresentations€made€by€the€sellers.ò òÌÌà@ àI.ó ó›ÌÌà àà àThe€first€issue€raised€on€appeal€concerns€the€fact€that€the€sellers€didÏnot€own€the€property€in€question€when€they€agreed€to€sell€it€to€the€buyer.€€We€areÏat€a€loss,€however,€to€see€how€the€buyer€can€gain€anything€by€making€thisÏargument.€€The€basis€for€an€action€of€fraud€and€deceit€is€a€misrepresentation€ofÏthe€defendant€and€some€damage€flowing€from€a€justifiable€reliance€on€theÏmisrepresentation.€€òòHolt€v.€American€Progressive€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€731€S.W.2d€923Ï(Tenn.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case€there€is€no€proof€whatsoever€of€any€damage€caused€byÏthe€buyerððs€reliance€on€the€sellersðð€representation€that€they€owned€the€property€inÏquestion€when€they€only€had€an€option€on€it.€€The€buyer€got€the€exact€property€heÏhad€been€promised.€€(He€did€not€get€the€road€built€on€the€easement,€but€we€willÏdeal€with€that€aspect€of€the€case€in€the€next€section€of€this€opinion.)€€Therefore,€weÏare€of€the€opinion€that€this€issue€is€completely€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àIn€the€light€most€favorable€to€him,€the€plaintiffððs€claim€could€be€statedÏin€these€terms:€In€order€to€induce€him€to€accept€less€than€the€original€contractÏcalled€for,€the€sellers€promised€the€buyer€that€they€would€convey€the€forty€foot€stripÏto€the€city€and€that€the€city€would€construct€a€street€on€it;€the€promise€was€madeÏwithout€any€present€intention€of€actually€conveying€the€land€or€with€recklessÏdisregard€of€what€the€city€would€actually€do;€and€the€failure€to€carry€out€theÏpromise€resulted€in€damage€to€the€buyer.ÌÌà àà àThe€chancellor€made€two€specific€findings€with€respect€to€this€claim.€ÏHe€found€that€ð ðthere€was€no€misrepresentation€made€regarding€the€forty€(40)€footÏeasement€to€the€plaintiff,ðð€and€that€ð ðthe€plaintiff€.€.€.€did€not€have€a€reasonableÏbasis€on€which€to€rely€on€any€misrepresentation€that€is€alleged€in€this€case.ðð€€TheÏchancellor€further€found€that€the€buyer€was€not€a€credible€witness€and€that€he€wasÏso€anxious€to€start€his€business€on€the€property€that€he€voluntarily€gave€up€theÏforty€foot€strip€of€land.ÌÌà àà àThe€credibility€of€the€witnesses€is€a€matter€for€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination,€and€is€binding€on€the€reviewing€courts€unless€other€real€evidenceÏcompels€a€contrary€conclusion.€€òòState€ex€rel.€œBalsinger›€v.€Town€of€Madisonvilleóó,Í222€Tenn.€272,€435€S.W.2d€803€(1968).€€Other€findings€of€fact€in€a€non„jury€caseÏare€presumed€to€be€correct€and€may€be€disregarded€by€this€court€only€if€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€them.€€Rule€œ13€(d),€Tenn.€R.€App.€Proc.€€We€haveÏreviewed€the€record€and€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€chancellorððs€findings.€€Thus,€the€key€elements€of€the€buyerððs€claimÏhave€not€been€established€by€the€proof.ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€record€we€also€find€a€complete€failure€of€proof€as€toÏthe€buyerððs€damages.€€In€breach€of€contract€cases€we€say€that€the€parties€areÏentitled€to€the€benefit€of€the€bargain.€€See€22€Am.€Jur›.€œ2d›,€òòDamagesóó€ðð€45.€€StatedÏdifferently,€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€be€put€in€the€same€position€he€would€haveÏbeen€in€had€the€contract€been€performed.€€òòAction€Ads,€Inc.€v.€William€B.€TannerÏCo.óó,€592€S.W.2d€572€(Tenn.€App.€1979).à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àThe€buyer€alleged€that€the€sellers€promised€to€convey€the€easementÏto€the€city€and€that€the€city€had€agreed€to€put€a€road€on€it.€€Thus,€the€measure€ofÏthe€buyerððs€damages€would€have€been€the€value€of€the€property€with€the€roadÏconstructed€less€the€value€of€the€property€without€the€road.€€The€record€does€notÏcontain€any€proof€of€the€value€of€the€property€under€either€condition.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€buyerððs€claim€that€he€is€entitled€to€specific€performance€of€theÏoriginal€agreement€may€be€disposed€of€summarily.€€Specific€performance€is€aÏdiscretionary€remedy€and€is€available€where€the€remedy€at€law€is€inadequate.òò€ÏNew€River€Lumber€Co.€v.€Tennessee€œRy›.€Co.,óó€136€Tenn.€661,€191€œS.W.›€334Ï(1916).€€We€think€the€buyer€had€an€adequate€remedy€at€law.€€In€addition,€to€orderÏspecific€performance€of€an€agreement€the€buyer€admits€was€no€longer€theÏagreement€of€the€parties,€would€violate€all€the€principles€of€equity.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Clay€County.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€theÏappellant.€€ÌœÌ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÇÑ  Ñœ›