WPCA /]TV"P71<%.4C̬U!$P$"Yڌ#oCty\h>I/6Oa}>}2QyV<T6l=m|le#F.T1=xQOm*!`+8|%ƹn:`Z7z/o8G(STi5u;KSzCfN.RQ5 t7$@YFT6:"Be0ޔT]Xlc)/^&P%ێV~H<}3:Z K]&.A<84ԝTM1bYP4z e n: nyHƘdJPڋDNHс%UקfKϪZml# % U(N 0 U5N 1 Z z  1u^ 72 1^ ^$wN4 0DE m!!888U<N3 0U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0[ 02 0C 0Ib 0( 0 0! 0" 0f# 0.$ 0$ 0@% 0% 0& 0' 0f( 01) 0) 0* 0+ 00=, 0<m, 0, 0>g- 0v- 0`. 0`{. 0`. 0`;/ 0`/ 08/ 030 021 071 0:32 0Ym2 0_2 0 %3 0j/4 05 06 B*8 D/28 Ba8 0~8 0: D3: D-: 0K; D/Q; AS;; 0< 0D== A= 0,> 06> 00? 0:8@ 0^r@ 0<@U6 AU >BAU*AAHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  Rq$      2    _InordertosatisfyaclaimfortrebledamagesundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,theplaintiffmust  establishthatthedefendantwillfullyorknowinglyengagedinanunfairordeceptiveact. See Tenn.CodeAnn.4718 x 109(a)(3)(1995). C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.jO-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5], (#$  0  3|xU   -Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman ) Rq$      1    _AZԀmotiontodismissisconvertedtoamotionforsummaryjudgmentwhenthetrialcourtstates,ortheevidence  shows,thatit consideredmattersoutsidethepleading. SeeJordanv.Campbell ,No.M199900540COAR3CV,  1999Tenn.App.Lexis753,at*9(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.10,1999); AdamsTV,Inc.v.ComCorp.ofTenn. ,969S.W.2d J 91,920(Tenn.Ct.App.1997); seealsoPendletonv.Mills ,73S.W.3d115,120(Tenn.Ct.App.2001); Passv.Shelby ` Aviation,Inc. ,No.W199900018COAR9CV,2000Tenn.App.Lexis247,at*6!7(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.13,2000); &  AlFatlawyv.ChicagoIns.Co. ,M199900195COAR9CV,2000Tenn.App.Lexis186,at*9(Tenn.Ct.App.March  29,2000).#Z#*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -*DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/(|G2q$ !.8ldd8         0  <:zBottom of 7U(X7  ?j%2A`Arial?  Si\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dT)1dxd d<:zTop of For7\(X7  ?j%2A`Arial?  Si\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7(|3$ !.8ldd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  T)2dxd^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8ldd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK0KS.SampleKh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  !.8ldd8     _  l8XXdd8  j@ ?lINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#l?#Ԉ ,   January23,2002Session X XXl #lXX#JOHNASBURYandDIANAASBURY  ` v. ( x LAGONIASHERMAN,LLCandLAGONIAREALTYXXl  @  @  AnAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty H    @@"No.CT001369000 @p 0@p(#p(#DArmyBailey,Judge 8  l@*AV) ` dE<` A߈ X  @ No.W200101821_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober15,_2002_Ԉ W  AV) ` dE<` A 7  X XXX  Thisappealarisesfromthesaleofrealproperty.Priortoclosing,thebuyersquestionedthe 6 sellersaboutthepropertylines.Thesellerscontactedasurveyortomarkthepropertycorners.The " buyersdidnotreceivethesurveypriortotheclosing,butneverthelesswentaheadwiththeclosing.  Aftertheclosing,thebuyersreceivedthesurvey.Itshowedlesssquarefootagethanwhatthebuyers  allegehadbeenrepresentedtothem.Thebuyersfiledalawsuitagainstthesellers,allegingbreach  ofcontract,unjustenrichment,detrimentalreliance,fraudormisrepresentation,andviolationofthe  TennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.Thesellersfiledamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim n uponwhichreliefmaybegranted,or,inthealternative,forsummaryjudgment.Thetrialcourt Z dismissedthebuyersclaim.Onappeal,buyersarguethatthetrialcourterredindismissingtheir F case,andthatgenuineissuesoffactremain.Weaffirm,onthebasisthatthebuyersfailedtolook 2 atthepubliclyrecordedplatontheproperty,referencedinthesalescontract.#XXXX ]##lXX#XXl n   Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed  J  #lX #XX.lHollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. !*  AlanE._Highers_,J.,filedadissentingopinion.#lXX #XXl "! KevinA.Snider,Germantown,Tennessee,fortheappellantsJohnAsburyandDianaAsbury. $# JohnB.Turner,Jr.,Germantown,Tennessee,forappelleesLagoniaSherman,LLCandLagonia &!% Realty. z'"&    OPINION #lXX #XXl J*%)    `     h     #lXXN#XXl X XXX@* (#(#K(#   OnApril30,1999,thePlaintiffs/Appellants,JohnandDianaAsbury( theAsburys),entered &,v'+ intoarealestatecontractwithDefendant/Appellee,LagoniaSherman,LLC( LagoniaSherman), -b(,6 topurchaseahouseonlotthirtysevenoftheApplingLaGrangeSubdivisioninCordova,Tennessee,  for$119,000.Defendant/AppelleeLagoniaRealtyactedasLagoniaShermansagentduringthe  executionoftherealestatecontract.    OnMay18,1999,theAsburysandLagoniaShermanssalesmanager,BrandiVines ` ( Vines),conductedawalkthroughoftheproperty.TheAsburysquestionedVinesaboutthe L  locationofthepropertylinesonlotthirtyseven.TheAsburysclaimthatVinessaidwithcertainty 8  thatthenortheastpropertylinewasinastraightline,perpendiculartothebackpropertyline,starting $ t fromacrowsfootontheleftfrontcurbtotheleftrearcorneroftheproperty,andthattheproperty  ` includedatreeinthefrontofthelot.TheAsburysclaimthatVinesassuredthemthattheproperty  L  lineswouldbedeterminedpriortotheclosing,andthatnewsodwouldbelaidtomarktheproperty  8  lines. $    VinessaysthatsheshowedtheAsburystheleftfrontpropertycornerbuttoldtheAsburys   thattherearcornerscanbedifficulttolocatebecauserearpropertymarkerseasilysinkintothe   groundorarepulledupoutoftheground.VinesassertsthatshetoldtheAsburysthatthesodline   wasnotthepropertyline.VinesclaimsthatshetoldtheAsburysthatthetreedidnotappeartobe p ontheirproperty.Duringthecourseofthewalkthrough,theAsburysandVinescompiledapunch \ list,orlistofrepairs,thatweretobemadepriortoclosing.Undertheheading exteriorworkon H thepunchlist,itemthreestatedthattheleftfrontandleftrearpropertycornersshouldbe 4 determined,itemfourstatedtosodifneeded,anditemelevenstatedthatdeadsodshouldbe  p replaced.Thepunchlistmadenomentionofusingsodtomarkthepropertylines.  \   OnMay24,1999,VinescontactedAFAEngineeringtomarkthepropertycornersonlot 4 thirtyseven.OnMay30,1999,AFAEngineeringrepresentativeBillPerry( Perry)markedthe   propertycorners.TheAsburysclaimthattheirclosingattorney,MichaelChamplin,toldthemthat   acopyofthesurveywouldbesuppliedtothemattheclosingontheproperty.OnJune4,1999,  whentheAsburysclosedontheproperty,theyhadnotyetreceivedthesurvey;nevertheless,they  wentaheadwiththeclosing.TheAsburyssaidthattheywentaheadwiththeclosingwithoutthe  surveybecauseofVinessrepresentationsaboutthepropertylines.TheAsburysnevercheckedthe l PlatBookinwhichlotthirtysevenwaspubliclyrecorded. X    OnJune10,1999,aftertheclosing,theAsburysreceivedthesurveyoftheproperty.The 0"  surveyindicatedthatthenortheastpropertylinedidnotruninastraightlineperpendicularfromthe #l! backlineofthelot.Rather,thesurveyindicatedthatthenortheastpropertylinerandiagonallyfrom $X" thebackofthelottothefrontofthelot.TheAsburysclaimthatthedifferenceintheangleofthe $D # northeastpropertylinemeantthatlotthirtysevenconsistedoflesssquarefeetthanhadbeen %0!$ representedtothembyVines,andalsomeantthatthetreedirectlyinfrontoftheirhousewasnoton &"% theirproperty. '#&   OnMarch30,2000,theAsburysfiledalawsuitagainstLagoniaShermanandLagoniaRealty )$( intheCircuitCourtofShelbyCounty.Thelawsuitallegedbreachofcontract,unjustenrichment, |*%) detrimentalreliance,fraudormisrepresentation,andviolationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtection h+&* Act.OnMay4 ,2000,LagoniaShermanandLagoniaRealtyfiledananswertothecomplaint.  Almostoneyearlater,onMay1 ,2001,LagoniaShermanandLagoniaRealtyfiledamotionto  dismissthecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegrantedor,inthe  alternative,forsummaryjudgment.ThemotionwassupportedbythedepositionsofVinesandthe t Asburys,aswellastheaffidavitsoftheownerofAFAEngineering#XXXX 1#X XXX# XX #X X ,AFArepresentativePerry,and ` thesoddingsubcontractor,HarveyWalden.OnJuly6,2001,thetrialcourtenteredanorderof L  dismissal,phrasingitsorderasadismissalforfailuretostateaclaim.Fromthisorder,the_Asburys_ 8  nowappeal. $ t   Onappeal,the_Asburys_Ԁarguethat,ifthetrialcourtsorderisconsideredadismissalfor  L  failuretostateaclaim,basedonthecomplaintalone,thecomplaintstatesvalidclaimsforbreach  8  ofcontract,detrimentalreliance,unjustenrichment,fraudormisrepresentation,andviolationofthe $  TennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.Iftheorderofthetrialcourtisconsideredagrantofsummary   judgment,the_Asburys_Ԁarguethattherewasagenuineissueofmaterialfactonthebreachofcontract   claim.Ontheclaimsofdetrimentalrelianceandunjustenrichment,the_Asburys_Ԁmaintainthata   genuineissueofmaterialfactremainsonwhetherthe_Asburys_Ԁreasonablyreliedonthealleged   representationthatnewsodwastobeplacedalongthepropertyline.The_Asburys_Ԁarguethatthe p claimsforfraudandforviolationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActwereerroneously \ dismissedbecauseissuesofmaterialfactremainonwhethertheallegedmisrepresentationwasmade H recklesslyorwithknowledgeoffalsity,aswellaswhetherthe_Asburys_reliancewasreasonable. 4 Finally,the_Asburys_Ԁarguethattheparolevidenceruleshouldnotapplytobarproofofthealleged  p misrepresentations._Lagonia_ԄShermanarguesthattheorderofthetrialcourtwasagrantofsummary  \ judgmentbecausematerialsoutsidethepleadingsweresubmittedandconsideredbythetrialcourt. H Regardless,_Lagonia_ԄShermanmaintainsthatdismissalwasproperbecausethecomplaintfailedto 4 stateaclaim,andtherearenoissuesofmaterialfactastoanyofthe_Asburys_claims.      Thethresholdissueinthisappealiswhetherthetrialcourtsorderofdismissalshouldbe  treatedasadismissalforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegrantedunderRule  12.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,orasanorderofsummaryjudgmentunder  TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure56.Afterreceivingthe_Asburys_complaint,_Lagonia_ԄSherman l and_Lagonia_ԀRealtyfiledamotiontodismissthecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhich X  reliefmaybegranted,or,inthealternative,forsummaryjudgment.Thetrialcourtdismissedthe D! _Asburys_claim,couchingitasadismissalforfailuretostateaclaim.# XX ##X X #XXXX ##X XXXԀRule12.02(6),however, 0"  mandatesthatwhen mattersoutsidethepleadingsarepresentedtoandnotexcludedbythecourt, #l! themotionshallbetreatedasoneforsummaryjudgment. #  1      ׀ See Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(emphasis $X" added); PacificE.Corp.v.GulfLifeHoldingCo. ,902S.W.2d946,952(Tenn.Ct.App.1995); see $D # also_Hixson_Ԁv._Stickley_ ,493S.W.2d471,473(Tenn.1973)(discussingjudgesprerogativeto  includeorexcludeextraneousinformationonamotiontodismiss,andfurtherstatingthat # XX 1##l 2#i liX X iona  motionunderRule[12.02(6)]extraneousmattermaynotbeconsideredifthecourtexcludesit,but  ifthecourtdoesnotexcludesuchmaterialthemotion#i XiX 5##l i5#M  _i liX X ishall#i XiX 37##l i7#M6heA  i liX X iԀbetreatedasamotionforsummary t judgmentanddisposedofasprovidedinRule56.).#i XiX 7##l i7#XXlX XXXԀWithoutquestion,inthiscase,mattersoutside ` thepleadingswerepresentedtothetrialcourtwiththedefendantsmotion.Thequestionthen L  becomeswhetherthosematterswere notexcludedbythetrialcourt.#XXXX 8#X XXX# XX 8#X X Ԁ 8    Ofcourse,inordertoexcludemattersoutsidethepleadings,thetrialcourtneednotexpressly  ` statethatithaschosentoexcludesuchmattersfiledwiththemotion,butthecircumstancesmay  L  indicatethatitexcludedsuchinformation.  Forexample,in Winchesterv.Little ,996S.W.2d818  8  (Tenn.App.1998),thiscourtconcludedthat: $  8  Thetrialcourtsorderiscouchedintermsofadismissalratherthansummary   judgment.Thetrialjudgestatesthathisopinionisbaseduponthepleadingsand   argumentofPlaintiffandcounselforDefendant.Nomentionismadeof   considerationofanymattersoutsidethepleadings.Appelleecontendsthatastothe p issueoftheguardianadlitemsfee,mattersoutsidethepleadingwerepresentedto \ andnotexcludedbythecourt.Iftheguardianadlitemfeewasanissueonappeal, H thisCourtmightfindthatpartialsummaryjudgmentwasgrantedonthatissue. 4 However,thisCourtfindsthatalltheissuesraisedinthisappealweredismissedby  p thetrialcourtforfailuretostateaclaim. \    Id. at821.Thus,in Winchester ,thetrialcourtdidnotstateexpresslythatitwasexcludingmatters 4 outsidethepleadings,butrather coucheditsorderintermsofadismissalandstatedthatit   consideredonly thepleadingsandtheargumentsoftheparties,therebyexcludingtheextraneous   evidencebynegativeimplication.Hence,theorderwasreviewedonappealasanorderofdismissal  basedonthepleadingsonly. Seeid. Conversely,ononeissuein Winchester inwhichmatters  outsidethepleadingswerepresentedand notexcluded,expresslyorbyimplication,hadtheissue  beenraisedonappeal,itwouldmorelikelyhavebeenconsideredagrantofpartialsummary l judgment. Id. Insum,whilethetrialcourtneednotexpresslyexcludeconsiderationofmatters X  outsidethepleadings,itcanimplythatthecollateralinformationwasexcluded;however,theremust D! besomeindiciathatthetrialcourtinfactexcludedtheadditionalinformation. Seeid. #XXXX +:#X XXX# XX m:#X X  0"    Thiscasepresentsacloserquestionthanwaspresentedin Winchester .Similarto $X"  Winchester ,theorderofthetrialcourthereisalso couchedintermsofadismissal.Unlike $D #  Winchester ,however,thetrialcourtdidnotstateexpresslyorbyimplicationwhatwasconsidered %0!$ inmakingitsdecision.Thesituationhereismoreakintotheissuenotraisedonappealin &"%  Winchester ,inwhichthetrialcourtwaspresentedwithmattersoutsidethepleadingsthatwere not '#& excluded,andwhichthiscourtindicated mightbetreatedasagrantofpartialsummaryjudgment. (#'   Inthiscase,considerablediscoveryhadbeenconducted.Numerousdepositionsand |*%) affidavitswerepresentedtothetrialcourt,alongwiththeplethoraofpleadingsandattachments h+&* j    thereto.Thetrialcourtnotedinitsorderthatthedefendantshadfiledinthealternative,todismiss  orforsummaryjudgment.Althoughtheorderis couchedintermsofdismissalratherthan  summaryjudgment,thetrialjudgedoesnotstatewhichdocumentsherelieduponinmakinghis  decision. t   Wearerequired,ofcourse,tokeepinmindthatRule12.02statesthatif mattersoutsidethe L  pleadingsarepresented# XX CE#X X Ԁtoandnotexcludedbythecourt,themotionshall  be# XX K#X X Ԁtreatedasonefor 8  summaryjudgment.Consideringtherecordinthiscaseaswhole,thecircumstancesdonotindicate $ t clearlyenoughthatmattersoutsidethepleadingspresentedtothetrialcourtwereinfactexcluded  ` bythetrialcourt.Accordingly,wefindthattheorderofthetrialcourtwasanorderofsummary  L  judgment.# XX L#X X #XXXX E#X XXXԀ# XX aN##l N#XXlX XXX  8    Basedonthisholding,wemustnowdeterminewhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingthe   summaryjudgmentinfavorofthesellers.#XXXX *O##lXX O#XXlXXXXAmotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedwhen   the_movant_Ԁdemonstratesthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthemovingparty   isentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thepartymovingforsummary   judgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuineissueofmaterialfactexists. _Bain_Ԁv.  Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).Onamotionforsummaryjudgment,thecourtmusttake | thestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonable l inferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Id. #XXXXiP#XXXX \     Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthefactsandthelegalconclusionsdrawnfrom < thefactsreasonablypermitonlyoneconclusion. _Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn. ,| 1995).Becauseonlyquestionsoflawareinvolved,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessregarding l atrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment. _Bain_ ,936S.W.2dat622.Therefore,ourreviewofthe  \ trialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentisdenovoontherecordbeforethisCourt. Warrenv. L EstateofKirk ,954S.W.2d722,723(Tenn.1997).#XXXXS#XXXXԀ#XXXXDW#X XXX# XX JP#X X  <    Whentheorderofthetrialcourtisreviewedasagrantofsummaryjudgment,itisreadily  apparentthatthetrialcourtcorrectlydismissedthebreachofcontractclaim.# XX W#X X #XXXX W#X XXXInordertoestablish  aclaimforbreachofcontract,theplaintiffmustshowtheexistenceofacontractandthatthe   breachingpartyfailedtoperformaccordingtothecontract. See Tenn.Juris.Contracts78(1997). ! ThewrittencontractthatisthesubjectoftheAsburysbreachofcontractclaimincludesthestandard |"  clausestatingthatthewrittenagreementconstitutestheentireagreementbetweentheparties, h#! expresslydisclaimingrelianceonanypromisesorwarrantiesmadeoutsideofthewrittenagreement. T$" Thewrittenagreementstatesthatitconveysthepropertyat1036ApplingMeadow asrecordedin @% # PlatBook159,page4.ItisundisputedthatthedescriptioninthePlatBookisaccurateandthatthe ,&|!$ Asburys,forreasonsnotapparentfromtherecord,electednottoinspectthePlatBookpriortothe 'h"% closing.Furthermore,althoughtheAsburysallegethatthecontractobligatesthesellerstoplacesod (T#& alongthepropertyline,thereisnosuchreferenceinthecontract.   (@$'   Moreover,evenifthebreachofcontractclaimisconsideredsolelyfromthecomplaintwith *&) noconsiderationofthewrittenagreement,theclaimfails.Thecomplaintstatesonlythatthesellers +'* representedthatthepropertylinewasa straightlinefromthebackofthelottothefrontofthelot.  Thecomplaintdoesnotassertthatthesellersrepresentedthatthepropertylineindisputewas  perpendiculartothebackpropertyline.Ofcourse,thetruepropertylineisinfacta straightline  whichbeginsatthebackofthelotandendsatthefrontofthelot.Itisnotperpendiculartotheback t propertyline,butthatwasnotallegedinthecomplaint.#XXXX 5Y#X XXX# XX X#X X ԀUnderthesecircumstances,itisclearthat ` theAsburysdonothaveaviablebreachofcontractclaim.#XXXX a#X XXX# XX a#X X   L     TheAsburysalsoarguethatthetrialcourterredindismissingtheirclaimofunjust $ t enrichment.Inordertoestablishaclaimforunjustenrichment,thefollowingtwoelementsmust  ` bemet: (1)thereisnocontractbetweenthepartiesoracontracthasbecomeunenforceableor  L  invalid;and(2)thedefendantwillbeunjustlyenrichedabsentaquasicontractualobligation.  8   WhitehavenCmty.BaptistChurchv.Holloway ,973S.W.2d592,596(Tenn.1998)(citing $   Paschalls,Inc.v.Dozier ,407S.W.2d150,154!55(Tenn.1966)).TheAsburyscomplaintreadily   admitstheexistenceofarealestatecontractbetweentheparties.Thereisnoassertionthatthe   contractbecameunenforceableorinvalid.Becauseitisundisputedthattherewasacontractbetween   theparties,thetrialcourtdidnoterrindismissingtheclaimofunjustenrichment. x  @*      Similartotheclaimforunjustenrichment,detrimentalreliance,orpromissoryestoppel,is \ anequitableremedybasedonaquasicontractualtheory. SeeRampyv.ICIAcrylics ,898S.W.2d H 196,211(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Incasesinwhichthereisanabsenceofconsiderationbetweenthe 4 partiessothatthereisnovalidcontract,detrimentalreliance constitutesasubstitutefor  p consideration,orasufficientreasonforenforcementofthepromisewithoutconsideration. Alden  \ v.Presley ,637S.W.2d862,864(Tenn.1982)(quotingL.Simpson,LawofContracts61(2ded. H 1965)).Asnotedabove,theAsburyscomplaintadmitstheexistenceofacontract.Becausethe 4 complaintfailstoassertthattherewasalackofconsiderationsothatpromissoryestoppelshould   havebeensubstitutedasaquasicontractualremedy,thetrialcourtdidnoterrindismissingthe   Asburysclaimofdetrimentalreliance.     TheAsburysalsoarguethatthetrialcourterredindismissingtheirclaimoffraudand  misrepresentation.Inordertostateaclaimforfraud,thefollowingelementsmustbeestablished: l 8  (1)anintentionalmisrepresentationwithregardtoamaterialfact;(2)knowledgeof D! therepresentation[s]falsity"thattherepresentationwasmade knowinglyor 0"   withoutbeliefinitstruth,or recklesslywithoutregardtoitstruthorfalsity;(3) #l! thattheplaintiffreasonablyreliedonthemisrepresentationandsuffereddamage;and $X" (4)thatthemisrepresentationrelatestoanexistingorpastfact,or,iftheclaimis $D # basedonpromissoryfraud,thenthemisrepresentationmust embodyapromiseof %0!$ futureactionwithoutthepresentintentiontocarryoutthepromise.&"%    Shahrdarv.GlobalHous.,Inc. ,983S.W.2d230,237(Tenn.Ct.App.1998)(quoting Stacksv. (#' Saunders ,812S.W.2d587,592(Tenn.Ct.App.1990)).TheAsburyscomplaintassertsthat )$( LagoniaShermanandLagoniaRealty engagedinfraudand/ormisrepresentationinstatingthat |*%) thenortheastpropertylineraninastraightlinefromthebackofthelottothefrontofthelotandthat h+&* thenortheastpropertylinewaslocatedwherethesodhadbeenplaced.Thecomplaintdoes_not  allegethattheserepresentationsby_Lagonia_ԄShermanand_Lagonia_ԀRealtyweremadeknowinglyor  recklessly.Moreover,thecomplaintdoesnotincludeanyfactualallegationstosupportanallegation  thatthesellershadknowledgeofthefalsityoftherepresentation.Rather,thecomplaintsimply t makesthe_conclusory_Ԁallegationthat_Lagonia_ԄShermanand_Lagonia_ԀRealtyengagedinfraudwhen ` theymaderepresentationstothe_Asburys_.Inaddition,sincethe_Asburys_Ԁadmittedlyelectednotto L  lookatthepubliclyrecordedPlatBookonthepropertyinadvanceoftheclosing,andelectedtogo 8  aheadwiththeclosingwithouthavingreceivedthesurveyontheproperty,theelementofreasonable $ t reliancecannotbeestablished,sincetheirrelianceontheallegedmisrepresentationwasnot  ` reasonable.Underthesecircumstances,wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdismissaloftheclaim  L  offraudandmisrepresentation.  8     Finally,the_Asburys_ԀassertthatthetrialcourterredindismissingtheirConsumerProtection   Actclaim.TheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,section4718101,etseq.ofTennesseeCode   Annotated,providesarightofactionforaconsumerwhoisthevictimofanunfairordeceptiveact   inthecourseofanytradeorcommerce. See Tenn.CodeAnn.4718102(2)(1995).The   TennesseeConsumerProtectionActcoversrealestatetransactionsasinthecaseatbar. See p _Ganzevoort_Ԁv.Russell ,949S.W.2d293,298(Tenn.1997).Unlikeaclaimforfraud,theplaintiff \ doesnothavetoshowthatthedefendantengagedinunfairordeceptiveactsknowinglytosatisfy H aclaimforactualdamagesundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct. #  2      ׀ See_Menuskin_Ԁv. 4 Williams ,145F.3d755,767!68(6thCir.1998);Tenn._Juris_.FraudandDeceit15(2002).Rather,  p anegligentmisrepresentationmayconstituteaviolationoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.  \  See_Menuskin_ ,145F.3dat768;Tenn._Juris_.FraudandDeceit15.Negligentmisrepresentation H isdefinedas: 4 8  Onewho,inthecourseofhisbusiness,professionoremployment,orinanyother   transactioninwhichhehasapecuniaryinterest,suppliesfalseinformationforthe  guidanceofothersintheirbusinesstransactions,issubjecttoliabilityforpecuniary  losscausedtothembytheirjustifiablerelianceupontheinformation,ifhefailsto  exercisereasonablecareorcompetenceinobtainingorcommunicatingthe l information.X     Robinsonv._Omer_ ,952S.W.2d423,427(Tenn.1997)(quotingRestatement(Second)ofTorts 0"  552(1977))(emphasisadded).Thus,inordertosustainanactionbasedonnegligent #l! misrepresentation,theplaintiffmustjustifiablyrelyonthefalseinformation.Intheirrespective $X" depositions,bothMr.andMrs._Asbury_ԀstatedthatVineswasuncertainofthepropertylinein $D # question.Additionally,the_Asburys_ԀelectednottomakeevenacursoryinspectionofthePlatBook, %0!$ andalsochosetogoaheadwiththeclosingwithouthavingreceivedthesurveyontheproperty. &"% Underthesecircumstances,theelementofjustifiablereliancecannotbeestablishedbecauseany '#& reliancebythe_Asburys_Ԁwasnotjustifiable.Assuch,thesellersmotionforsummaryjudgmentwas  propertygrantedwithregardtothe_Asbury_sTennesseeConsumerProtectionActclaim.#XXXX b#X XXX# XX b#X X ԀThis  holding_pretermits_Ԁanyotherissuesraisedonappeal.     Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedagainstthe ` Appellants,JohnAsburyandDianaAsbury,andtheirsurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueif L  necessary. `     h      p      x  #XXXX ##lXXօ#XXl 8      `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE      `     h      p