ÿWPCƒ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µUPÝw@- 4m   0l˜ 0D 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% B‰U>¦U6äB)DCC AM† D3ÓU*0 0@?v~vÓ  AOÞÆ- 0Dó D/7 Bf˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLdÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular o p q Dr s t Du v w Dx Ó€Úƒç"3|xƒ ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òDecember€9,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔòòCf›.€ò òœGanzevoort›€v.€Russelló óóó,€949€œS.W.2d›€293€(Tenn.€1997).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€&ÔÑ7€¼àXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßR€),(A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌROBERT€W.€BAGBY,à àà àà à€€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9705„CV„00183Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€CARTER€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà à€à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌDEAN€RUSSELL€CARRICO,à àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HONORABLE€G.€RICHARD€JOHNSON,Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à à€€€)à àCHANCELLOR,€By€InterchangeÌÌÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleeÌÌTHOMAS€R.€BANKSà àà àà àà àHOWELL€H.€SHERROD,€JR.ÌBanks€&€Banksà àà àà àà àà àSherrod,€Stanley,€Lincoln€&ÌElizabethton,€Tennesseeà àà àà à€€GoldsteinÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohnson€City,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€&ÔÔ€&XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€this€case,€the€plaintiff€claims€that€the€defendantÏmade€an€intentional€misrepresentation€in€connection€with€the€saleÏof€a€tract€of€unimproved€real€property.€€Following€a€bench€trial,Ïthe€court€found€that€the€defendant,€Dean€Russell€CarricoÏ(ð ðCarricoðð),€had€fraudulently€misrepresented€a€material€fact,Ïresulting€in€a€judgment€of€$21,911.97€for€the€plaintiff,€Dr.ÏRobert€W.€Bagby€(ð ðBagbyðð).€€The€trial€court€also€found€thatÏCarricoððs€conduct€violated€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€ActÏof€1977,€T.C.A.€ðð€47„18„101,€òòet€seq.óó€(ð ðthe€Actðð).€€CarricoÏappealed,€raising€three€issues€that€present€the€followingÏquestions€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Was€the€Chancellor€correct€in€finding€thatÏBagby€and€Carrico€entered€into€an€agreement€toÏbuy€property€together?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Was€the€Chancellor€correct€in€finding€thatÏCarrico€was€guilty€of€a€fraudulentÏmisrepresentation?ÌÌà àà8 à3.€€If€Carrico€made€a€misrepresentation€ofÏfact,€was€Bagbyððs€reliance€on€theÏmisrepresentation€reasonable?ÌÌÓÓÌà@ àIÌÌà àà àIn€the€spring€of€1995,€Carrico€commenced€negotiationsÏwith€Michael€Miller€and€his€wife,€œAlesia›€Miller€(ð ðthe€Millersðð)€toÏpurchase€the€Millersðð€40„acre€tract€of€land.€€The€Millers€andÏCarrico€subsequently€agreed€upon€a€purchase€price€of€$2,500€perÏacre.€€Several€weeks€later,€Carrico€contacted€Bagby,€who€hadÏpreviously€told€Carrico€that€he€would€be€interested€in€purchasingÏsome€property€ð ðwith€a€view,ðð€and€offered€to€sell€one„half€of€theÏMiller€tract€to€Bagby€for€$3,450€per€acre.ÌÌà àà àBagby€testified€that€Carrico€told€him€that€he,€Carrico,Ïhad€agreed€to€pay€the€Millers€$3,450€per€acre.€€Carrico,€however,Ïtestified€that€he€had€made€no€such€representation,€but€had€onlyÏquoted€that€amount€as€the€sale€price€between€himself€and€Bagby.€ÏBagby€testified€that€they€agreed€that€Carrico€would€purchase€theÏentire€tract,€at€$3,450€per€acre,€and€would€then€sell€half€of€theÍland€to€Bagby€at€the€same€price.€€It€is€undisputed€that€theÏparties€agreed€to€œshare€equally›€œthe›€cost€of€a€survey€and€theÏattorneyððs€fees€attendant€to€the€transaction.€€CarricoÏsubsequently€billed€Bagby€for€half€of€the€fees€charged€by€theÏattorney€and€surveyor.€€Bagby€had€no€contact€with€the€attorney,Ïthe€surveyor,€or€the€Millers;€nor€did€he€review€any€paperworkÏbetween€the€Millers€and€Carrico.ÌÌà àà àCarricoððs€transaction€with€the€Millers€was€closed€onÏJune€28,€1995.€€The€deed€to€Carrico,€which€reflects€a€purchaseÏprice€of€$100,600€„„€representing€40.24€acres€at€$2,500€per€acre€„„€was€recorded€immediately€after€the€closing.€€Carrico€and€BagbyÏcompleted€their€transaction€the€same€afternoon.€€Bagby€paidÏCarrico€$69,414€for€20.12€acres,€or€$3,450€per€acre.ÌÌà àà àApproximately€one€month€later,€Bagby€discovered€thatÏCarrico€had€paid€only€$2,500€per€acre€for€the€entire€tract.€€BagbyÏand€his€wife€testified€that€when€Bagby€confronted€CarricoÏregarding€the€discrepancy,€Carrico€stated€that€he€had€paid€theÏMillers€ð ðsomething€under€the€tableðð€in€addition€to€the€$2,500€perÏacre,€and€thus€had€paid€as€much€for€his€half€of€the€tract€as€hadÍœBagby;€however,€there›€was€no€œother€evidence›€at€œtrial›€of€an€ð ðunderÏthe€tableðð€payment.ÌÌà àà àBagby€filed€suit,€alleging€that€Carrico€was€guilty€of€aÏfraudulent€misrepresentation,€as€well€as€a€violation€of€the€Act.€ÏThe€trial€court€agreed€and€entered€judgment€in€favor€of€Bagby€onÏboth€theories.€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€that€CarricoÏhad€falsely€stated€to€Bagby€that€the€price€of€the€property€wasÏ$3,450€per€acre,€when€in€fact€it€was€only€$2,500€per€acre.€€TheÏcourt€also€stated€that€ð ðparticularly€in€this€case,€word€againstÏword,€the€Court€has€devoted€time€and€effort€in€evaluating€andÏweighing€and€determining€the€credibility€of€the€parties€and€theirÏwitnesses.ðð€€The€trial€court€awarded€Bagby€compensatory€damages€ofÏ$19,414,€pre„judgment€interest€of€$2,497.97,€attorneyððs€fees,€andÏcertain€discretionary€costs.€€It€declined,€however,€to€awardÏtreble€damages€under€the€Act,€finding€that€such€an€award€was€notÏappropriate€under€the€circumstances.€€Likewise,€the€court€refusedÏto€award€punitive€damages,€finding€that€Bagby€had€ð ðfailed€to€proveÏthe€elements€of€punitive€damages€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.ððÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àà àOur€review€of€this€non„jury€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€proceedings€below;€however,€that€record€comes€to€usÏwith€a€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€areÏcorrect.€€Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.€€We€must€honor€this€presumptionÏunless€we€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€thoseÏfindings.€€òòId.óó;€òòò òUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonó óóó,€854€S.W.2dÏ87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law,Ïhowever,€are€not€afforded€the€same€deference.€€ò òòòCampbell€v.ÏFlorida€Steel€Corp.óóó ó,€919€S.W.2d€26,€35€(Tenn.€1996);€ò òòòPresleyÏv.€Bennettó óóó,€860€S.W.2d€857,€859€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àà àOur€òòde€novoóó€review€is€subject€to€the€well„establishedÏprinciple€that€the€trial€court€is€in€the€best€position€to€assessÏthe€credibility€of€the€witnesses;€accordingly,€such€credibilityÏdeterminations€are€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal.€Ïòòò òMassengale€v.€Massengaleó óóó,€915€S.W.2d€818,€819€(Tenn.App.€1995);Ïòòò òBowman€v.€Bowmanó óóó,€836€S.W.2d€563,€566€(Tenn.App.€1991).€€InÏfact,€this€court€has€noted€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à...on€an€issue€which€hinges€on€witnessÏcredibility,€[the€trial€court]€will€not€beÏreversed€unless,€other€than€the€oral€testimonyÏof€the€witnesses,€there€is€found€in€the€recordÍclear,€concrete€and€convincing€evidence€to€theÏcontrary.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòTennessee€Valley€Kaolin€Corp.€v.€Perryó óóó,€526€S.W.2d€488,€490Ï(Tenn.App.€1974).ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àTo€prevail€on€a€claim€of€fraudulent€misrepresentation,€aÏplaintiff€must€demonstrate€that:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1)€the€defendant€made€a€representation€of€anÏexisting€or€past€fact;€2)€the€representationÏwas€false€when€made;€3)€the€representation€wasÏin€regard€to€a€material€fact;€4)€the€falseÏrepresentation€was€made€either€knowingly€orÏwithout€belief€in€its€truth€or€recklessly;€5)Ïplaintiff€reasonably€relied€on€theÏmisrepresented€material€fact;€and€6)€plaintiffÏsuffered€damage€as€a€result€of€theÏmisrepresentation.ÌÌÓÓò òòòMetropolitan€Govððt€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€v.ÏMcKinneyó óóó,€852€S.W.2d€233,€237€(Tenn.App.€1992)(citing€ò òòòGraham€v.ÏFirst€American€Natððl€Bankó óóó,€594€S.W.2d€723,€725€(Tenn.App.Ï1979));€òòò òDevorak€v.€Pattersonó óóó,€907€S.W.2d€815,€819€(Tenn.App.Ï1995).€€In€cases€involving€fraud€in€the€sale€of€real€property,Ïthis€court€has€held€thatÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[o]ne€who€in€a€real€estate€transaction€inÏwhich€he€has€a€pecuniary€interest€suppliesÏfalse€information€for€the€guidance€of€othersÏis€subject€to€liability€for€the€pecuniary€lossÏcaused€to€them€by€their€justifiable€relianceÏon€such€information.ÌÌÓÓÌò òòòYoungblood€v.€Walló óóó,€815€S.W.2d€512,€518€(Tenn.App.€1991)(citingÏò òòòChastain€v.€Billingsóóó ó,€570€S.W.2d€866€(Tenn.App.€1978)).ÌÌà àà àGenerally€speaking,€the€measure€of€damages€in€a€fraudÏcase€is€to€compensate€the€injured€party€for€actual€damages€byÏattempting€to€place€that€party€in€the€same€position€that€he€or€sheÏwould€have€been€in€had€the€fraud€not€occurred.€€ò òòòHarrogate€Corp.Ïv.€Systems€Sales€Corp.óóó ó,€915€S.W.2d€812,€817€(Tenn.App.€1995);Ïò òòòYoungbloodó óóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€518.ÌÌà@ àIVÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€that€each€of€the€elements€of€aÏfraudulent€misrepresentation€were€present€in€this€case.€€AfterÏreviewing€the€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€this€conclusion.€€Rule€13(d),€T.R.A.P.€ÏAs€stated€earlier,€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€regardingÍwitness€credibility€are€afforded€great€deference€on€appeal.€Ïò òòòMassengaleóóó ó,€915€S.W.2d€at€819;€ò òòòBowmanó óóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€566.€€It€isÏclear€that€the€trial€court€accredited€Bagbyððs€testimony€to€theÏeffect€that€Carrico€had€stated€that€he€was€paying€the€Millers€aÏprice€of€$3,450€per€acre€for€the€property.ÌÌà àà àCarrico€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€findingÏthat€the€parties€entered€into€an€agreement€to€buy€propertyÏtogether,€in€finding€that€Carrico€was€guilty€of€fraudulentÏmisrepresentation,€and€in€finding€that€Bagbyððs€reliance€on€anyÏmisrepresentation€was€reasonable.ÌÌà àà àCarrico€contends€that€he€and€Bagby€were€neither€partnersÏnor€engaged€in€a€joint€venture.€€We€believe€that€the€question€ofÏwhether€the€parties€were€partners€or€engaged€in€a€joint€venture€isÏimmaterial.€€Such€a€relationship€is€not€a€prerequisite€to€aÏfinding€of€a€fraudulent€misrepresentation€in€this€case.€€For€theÏelements€of€such€a€claim,€òòsee,€e.g.,€ò òDevorakó óóó,€907€S.W.2d€at€819;òòÏò òMcKinneyó óóó,€852€S.W.2d€at€237.ÌÌà àà àSecondly,€Carrico€argues€that€he€had€no€duty€to€discloseÏto€Bagby€the€nature€of€his€dealings€with€the€Millers.€€We€findÍthis€argument€to€be€without€merit.€€Carrico€did€have€an€obligationÏto€respond€truthfully€when€Bagby€asked€him€the€purchase€price€ofÏthe€property.€€This€is€not€a€case€of€fraudulent€concealment;€onÏthe€contrary,€it€involves€an€affirmative€misrepresentation.€€AsÏfound€by€the€trial€court,€Carrico€stated€that€he€was€paying€$3,450Ïper€acre€for€the€property.ÌCarrico€maintains€that€the€proof€does€not€establish€that€he€madeÏthat€representation€to€Bagby.€€He€supports€this€contention€byÏpointing€out€that€the€partiesðð€testimony€on€this€point€is€inÏconflict,€and€that€another€witness,€Bert€Pat€Wolfe,€Jr.,€testifiedÏthat€he€did€not€specifically€hear€Bagby€ask€Carrico€if€the€MillersÏwere€selling€Carrico€the€land€for€$3,450€per€acre.€€WolfeððsÏtestimony,€however,€indicates€that€Carrico€did€specificallyÏrepresent€to€Bagby€that€$3,450€per€acre€was€the€purchase€price:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àQ.€€Tell€the€Court€what€you€heard€and€what€wasÏsaid€and€what€the€price€was.ÌÌà àà8 àA.€€Well,€while€we€were€standing€in€the€roadÏlooking€at€the€property...€Dr.€Bagby€confirmedÏwith€Mr.€Carrico€that€thirty„four€hundred€andÏfifty€($3,450.00)€dollars€was€the€price€perÏacre€that€they€were€paying.€€Mr.€CarricoÏconfirmed€that€thirty„four€hundred€and€fiftyÏ($3,450.00)€dollars€was€the€purchase€price.òòÌóóÌà àà8 àQ.€€And€is€there€any€doubt€in€your€mind€aboutÏthat?ÌÌà àà8 àA.€€That€thirty„four€hundred€and€fiftyÏ($3,450.00)€dollars€was€the€price?ÌÌà àà8 àQ.€€Right.ÌÌà àà8 àA.€€No€sir.ÌÌà àà8 àQ.€€For€the€whole€tract.ÌÌà àà8 àA.€€For€the€whole€tract.ÌÌà àà8 àQ.€€Did€you€understand€it€that€Dr.€Bagby€andÏMr.€Carrico€were€going€to€split€the€tract€atÏsome€point€in€time?ÌÌà àà8 àA.€€Yes€sir.€€Twenty€acres€each.ÌÌÓÓÌThe€trial€court€obviously€accredited€this€testimony,€along€withÏthat€of€Bagby.€€Again,€these€determinations€pertain€to€theÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses€and€are€entitled€to€great€weight€onÏappeal.€€òòò òMassengaleóóó ó,€915€S.W.2d€at€819;€ò òòòBowmanó óóó,€836€S.W.2d€atÏ566.€€We€have€found€no€ð ðclear,€concrete€and€convincingðð€evidenceÏto€contradict€the€trial€courtððs€credibility€determinations.€Ïò òòòTennessee€Valley€Kaolin€Corp.ó óóó,€526€S.W.2d€at€490.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€Carrico€contends€that,€if€he€did€make€aÏmisrepresentation,€Bagbyððs€reliance€on€his€misrepresentation€wasÏnot€reasonable,€due€to€the€fact€that€Bagby€had€equal€access€to€theÏinformation€in€question,€i.e.,€the€true€purchase€price€of€theÏproperty€from€the€Millers.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€CarricoÍcites€three€cases€for€the€proposition€that€a€partyððs€reliance€uponÏa€fraudulent€misrepresentation€is€not€reasonable€where€the€meansÏof€knowledge€is€readily€within€that€partyððs€reach.€€òòSee€ò òMcKinneyó óóó,Ï852€S.W.2d€at€239;€ò òòòSolomon€v.€First€American€Natððl€Bankóóó ó,€774ÏS.W.2d€935,€943€(Tenn.App.€1989);€ò òòòWinstead€v.€First€TennesseeÏBank€N.A.,€Memphisóóó ó,€709€S.W.2d€627,€633€(Tenn.App.€1986).ÌÌà àà àThe€facts€of€the€ò òòòMcKinneyóóó ó€and€ò òòòSolomonó óóó€cases€areÏinapposite€to€those€of€the€instant€case.€€In€the€ò òòòWinsteadóóó ó€case,Ïwhich€did€involve€a€sale€of€real€property,€the€Court€of€AppealsÏstated€that€the€general€rule€regarding€justifiable€reliance€andÏthe€means€of€knowledge€is€applicableÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[u]nless€the€representations€are€such€as€areÏcalculated€to€lull€the€suspicions€of€a€carefulÏman€into€a€complete€reliance€thereon....ÌÌÓÓÌòòò òWinsteadó óóó,€709€S.W.2d€at€633.€€We€find€that€this€language€isÏparticularly€applicable€to€the€facts€of€the€instant€case.€€It€isÏapparent€that€Carricoððs€representations€were€calculated€toÏreasonably€induce€in€Bagby€a€belief€that€Carrico€was€paying€$3,450Ïper€acre€for€the€subject€property.€€It€is€also€clear€that€BagbyÏrelied€completely€on€Carricoððs€representations.€€HavingÍmisrepresented€a€material€fact€to€one€who€had€placed€his€trust€inÏhim,€Carrico€cannot€now€claim€that€the€injured€party€should€haveÏindependently€discovered€that€he€was€not€telling€the€truth.€€òòò òId.óóó ó€ÏFurthermore,€we€disagree€with€Carricoððs€contention€that€Bagby€ð ðhadÏequal€access€to€the€information€in€question.ðð€€Bagby€was€under€noÏduty€to€contact€the€Millers,€or€to€investigate€the€terms€of€theirÏagreement€with€Carrico;€nothing€that€Carrico€did€or€said€wasÏreasonably€calculated€to€make€Bagby€suspicious€or€put€him€onÏnotice€that€something€was€amiss.€€Likewise,€Bagby€should€not€beÏcharged€with€constructive€notice€of€the€actual€purchase€priceÏsimply€because€that€amount€was€reflected€on€a€deed€recorded€onlyÏhours€before€the€closing€of€his€own€transaction€with€Carrico.€€InÏany€event,€it€has€been€held€that€one€who€practices€bad€faith€uponÏanother€may€not€invoke€the€doctrine€of€constructive€notice€in€aidÏof€his€own€wrongdoing.€€ò òòòHamilton€v.€Galbraithóóó ó,€15€Tenn.App.Ï158,€175€(1932).€€For€these€reasons,€we€find€no€merit€in€CarricoððsÏcontention€that€Bagbyððs€reliance€upon€his€representations€wasÏunjustified.ÌÌà àà àWe€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€findings€that€Carrico€made€a€misrepresentationÏof€an€existing€fact;€that€the€representation€was€false€when€made;Íthat€the€representation€was€in€regard€to€a€material€fact;€thatÏCarrico€made€the€false€representation€knowingly;€that€BagbyÏreasonably€relied€on€Carricoððs€misrepresentation;€and€that€BagbyÏsuffered€damages€as€a€result€of€the€misrepresentation.€€òòSeeóóÏò òòòDevorakó óóó,€907€S.W.2d€at€819;€ò òòòMcKinneyó óóó,€852€S.W.2d€at€237.ÌÌà àà àWe€do€not€find€it€necessary€or€appropriate€to€examineÏthe€trial€courtððs€alternative€basis€of€liability€under€the€Act.€ÏIt€is€not€necessary€because€the€lower€courtððs€judgment€can€beÏsustained€on€the€plaintiffððs€theory€of€fraudulentÏmisrepresentation;€it€is€not€appropriate€because€Carrico€advancesÏno€issues€under€the€Act.€€òòSeeóó€Rules€13(b)€and€27(a)(4),€œT.R.A.P.›ÌÌà@ àVÌÌà àà àThe€appellee€Bagby€contends€that,€since€Carricoððs€actsÏwere€intentional,€the€damages€awarded€by€the€trial€court€should€beÏmultiplied.€€As€stated€earlier,€the€applicable€measure€of€damagesÏin€a€case€of€fraudulent€misrepresentation€is€the€amount€of€actualÏdamages€sustained€by€the€defrauded€party.€€òòò òHarrogate€Corp.ó óóó,€915ÏS.W.2d€at€817;€òòò òYoungbloodó óóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€518.€€In€contrast,Ïtreble€damages€are€available€under€the€Act€to€remedy€willful€orÍknowing€violations;€however,€the€Act€vests€the€trial€court€withÏbroad€discretion€in€determining€whether€to€award€such€relief.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3);€òòsee€also€ò òSmith€v.€Scott€LewisÏChevrolet,€Inc.ó óóó,€843€S.W.2d€9€(Tenn.App.€1992).€€œAssuming,›Ïwithout€deciding,€that€the€Act€applies€to€this€transaction,× ƒ. ××  ×€weÏfind€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€toÏmultiply€the€damages.€€Likewise,€to€the€extent€that€Bagby€arguesÏthat€he€is€entitled€to€punitive€damages,€we€do€not€find€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏBagby€failed€to€prove€the€requisite€ð ðegregious€conductðð€by€clearÏand€convincing€evidence,€as€required€by€ò òòòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&ÏCo.ó óóó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àà àBagby€seeks€counsel€fees€for€this€appeal,€contendingÏthat€it€is€frivolous€in€nature€under€œT.C.A.›€ðð€27„1„122.€€WeÏdisagree;€œtherefore,›€his€request€is€denied.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€allÏrespects€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant€andÏhis€surety.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€theÍenforcement€of€the€judgment€and€collection€of€costs€assessedÏbelow,€all€pursuant€to€applicable€law.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌWilliam€H.€Inman,€Sr.J.Ì