ÿWPC  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ ÆH Æ ÆÔ 0Jš 0Tä 0^8 0h– 0rþ 0|p 0†ì 0r 1u 0dwU>ÛB)DCB AM… BÒU*ïùv~vÓ D3c 0@– D+Ö AYÆZ 0F  AOfƵ 0D{ D/¿ Bî˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ tEuvDwPxDyDzÓ€† ‡‰z!3|x‰Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial ïÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òSeptember€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÈÈÈÈdxdT-U:Müÿ << deUU…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(n$––ò ò(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)ó ó€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÑ  Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÅUXXdìdÈ7ÑÓ ` pŽXš)ˆ,‹X ÓÙ€TÙ<<€Conversion€error€>>Ù€€ÙßL€$'#;+'h|¾Á` Å `€€Lß›€€€€€€€€€à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌDAVID€COLEMAN€AND€à àà àà à)ÌPAULENE€A.€COLEMAN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óShelby€Law€No.Ï38887„7€T.D.€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌPRYOR€OLDSMOBILE/GMC,€€€€€€€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€02A01„9503„CV„00066Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌó óà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà àò òà à)à àÌó óòòÌóóò òÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€A.€LANIER,€JUDGE€ÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiffs/Appelleesóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:òòÌóóÌœWilliam€D.€Masseyà à›à àà àœ›€€€€€€€€€€€€Warren€D.€McWhirterÌPrice€Harris€€€€€à àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌò òÌÌÌà@ à€€€€€€€€€€€€AFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SR.€J.ò òÇØØÙ  ÙÑ7€ÅUXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àOPINIONó óÌÌÓÓà àThis€is€a€case€involving€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€David€and€PauleneÏColeman€claim€that€Pryor€Oldsmobile/GMC€violated€the€Act€by€not€informing€them€that€the€newÏdemonstrator€car€it€sold€them€had€received€damage€to€the€exterior€paint€and€had€been€repainted.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€for€the€Colemans.€We€affirm.Ìà àIn€May€1990,€Appellees€David€and€Paulene€Coleman€(the€Colemans)€went€to€AppellantÏPryor€Oldsmobile/GMC€(Pryor)€to€buy€a€new€car.€€The€Colemans€told€the€Pryor€salesman,€WillieÏSmith€(Smith),€that€they€wanted€a€new€car.€€After€showing€the€Colemans€an€array€of€new€cars,Ïnone€of€which€interested€them,€Smith€directed€the€Colemans€to€a€1989€demonstrator€model€withÏ5,987€miles€on€it.€€The€Colemans€inspected€this€vehicle€twice,€both€times€at€night,€and€purchased€itÏfor€$18,794.€€They€picked€up€the€car€on€a€rainy€day.Ìà àAfter€taking€the€car€home€and€observing€it€in€better€lighting,€the€Colemans€discovered€thatÏthe€car's€paint€contained€imperfections€on€the€trunk€and€right€rear€fender€and€door.€€When€PryorÏrefused€to€remedy€the€imperfections,€the€Colemans€filed€suit€against€Pryor,€alleging€€rescission€ofÏcontract,€breach€of€both€express€and€implied€warranties,€and€violation€of€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÏProtection€Act.Ìà àAt€trial,€records€established€that€Pryor,€for€undisclosed€reasons,€had€done€$225€worth€ofÏpaint€work€on€the€vehicle€in€order€to€"refresh"€it€sometime€prior€to€its€sale€to€the€Colemans.€€TheÏColemans€presented€proof€that€it€would€cost€$1,484.25€to€restore€the€car€to€"like€new"€condition.ÏThe€Colemans€withdrew€their€claim€for€rescission€of€the€contract,€and€the€trial€court€ruled€againstÏthem€on€their€breach€of€warranty€claims.€€The€trial€court,€however,€found€that€Pryor€violated€theÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€specifically€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„104(b)(6),€when€it€didÏnot€reveal€to€the€Colemans€that€paint€repair€work€had€been€done€on€the€vehicle.€€The€court€alsoÏfound€that€Pryorððs€violation€was€ð ðknowingðð€because€Pryor€knew€the€vehicle€had€been€damagedÏand€repainted€and€failed€to€disclose€this€fact€to€the€Colemans.€€Consequently,€the€court€doubled€theÏdamage€award.€€Even€though€treble€damages€could€have€been€awarded€under€the€statute,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3)„(4)€(1995),€the€trial€court€only€doubled€the€award€because€theÍColemans€had€been€ð ðsingularly€careless€about€examining€the€car€or€the€documents€which€theyÏsigned€before€taking€the€car€away.ðð€€Finally,€the€court€awarded€the€Colemans€$500€in€œÇattorneyððs›€fees.€€Pryor€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€it€violated€the€TennesseeÏConsumer€Protection€Act.Ìà àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€òòò òde€novoó óóóÏupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€€UnlessÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€error€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(d).Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€provides€that€it€is€unlawful€and€a€violation€of€theÏAct€to€represent€ð ðthat€goods€are€original€or€new€if€they€are€ò òòòdeteriorated,€altered€to€the€pointÏof€decreasing€the€value,€reconditionedó ó,óó€reclaimed,€used€or€secondhand.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€47„18„104(b)(6)€(1995)€(emphasis€added).€€ð ðNew€passenger€carðð€is€defined€elsewhereò òòò€ó óóóas€ð ðanyÏpassenger€car€which€has€never€been€the€subject€of€a€sale€at€retail€to€the€general€public.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€55„5„106(e)(5)€(1993).€€This€definition€is€applicable€under€the€Consumer€ProtectionÏœAct:€›€ð ðFor€the€purposes€of€ðð€47„18„104(b)(6),€any€passenger€motor€vehicle€which€meets€theÏrequirements€of€the€definition€for€a€new€passenger€car€in€ðð€55„5„106(e)(5)€shall€be€construed€to€beÏnew.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„119€(1995).€€It€is€well€established€that€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÏProtection€Act€should€be€liberally€construed€in€order€to€protect€consumers.€€òòò òMorris€v.€MackððsÏUsed€Carsó óóó,€824€S.W.2d€538,€540€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€òòò òHaverlah€v.€Memphis€Aviation,ÏInc.ó óóó,€674€S.W.2d€297,€305€(Tenn.€App.€1984)).Ìà àPryor€argues€that€it€had€no€duty€to€disclose€to€the€Colemans€that€the€vehicleððs€paint€hadÏbeen€damaged€and€that€the€paint€job€had€been€ð ðrefreshed,ðð€citing€òòò òPatton€v.€McHoneó óóó,€822ÏS.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€In€òòò òPattonó óóó,€a€consumer€bought€a€used€car€which€had€extensiveÏlatent€damages€due€to€an€earlier€accident.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€611„12.€€In€discussing€the€duty€a€used€car€dealerÏowes€its€customer€to€inform€him€of€defects€in€a€car,€œthis€court€stated:›ÌÓÓà8 àà àA€used€car€dealerððs€duty€to€disclose€information€concerning€a€carððsÏcondition€is€tempered€by€the€buyerððs€corresponding€responsibility€to€inspect€the€carÏbefore€purchasing€it.€€Sellers€need€not€disclose€inconsequential€information€orÏconditions€that€would€be€discovered€by€anyone€examining€the€car.€€A€dealer€needÏonly€disclose€the€defects€or€conditions€that€it€has€no€reason€to€believe€the€buyer€willÍdiscover.ÌÌÓÓòòò òId.ó óóó€at€616.€€Pryor€contends€that€the€defective€paint€was€clearly€visible€upon€inspection€and€shouldÏhave€been€discovered€by€the€Colemans.€€Thus,€under€the€holding€in€òòò òPattonó óóó,€Pryor€maintains€thatÏit€had€no€duty€to€disclose€the€fact€that€the€car€had€been€damaged€and€then€partially€repainted.Ìà àIt€is€important€to€note€that€òòò òPattonó óóó€deals€with€the€sale€of€a€ò òòòusedóóó ó€car.€€Pryor€argues€that€itÏmade€no€representation€to€the€Colemans€that€the€car€was€new;€it€is€undisputed€that€the€vehicle€hadÏnearly€6,000€miles€on€it€when€it€was€purchased.€€The€Colemans€respond€that€they€thought€theyÏwere€purchasing€a€new€car€because€it€had€not€previously€been€titled.€€Under€the€TennesseeÏConsumer€Protection€Act,€a€vehicle€is€deemed€new€if€it€has€not€previously€ð ðbeen€the€subject€of€aÏsale€at€retail€to€the€general€public.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„5„106(e)(5)€(1993);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ47„18„119€(1995).€€Despite€the€fact€that€the€car€had€nearly€6,000€miles€on€it€and€was€stated€to€be€aÏð ðdemonstrator,ðð€we€are€bound€by€the€statutory€definition€of€a€new€car.€€òòò òSee€Storey€v.ÏBradford€Furniture€Co.ó óóó,€910€S.W.2d€857,€859€(Tenn.€1995);€òòò òKendrick€v.€Kendrickó óóó,€902ÏS.W.2d€918,€923€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€In€prior€cases,€demonstrator€vehicles€have€been€treated€asÏnew€cars€in€suits€under€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€òòò òSeaton€v.€Lawson€Chevrolet„Mazda,ÏInc.ó óóó,€821€S.W.2d€137€(Tenn.€1991);€òòò òSeaton€v.€Lawson€Chevrolet„Mazda,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€CAÏ144,€1990€WL€130810€(Tenn.€App.€Sept.€13,€1990),€òòò òrevððd€on€other€groundsó óóó,€821€S.W.2dÏ137€(Tenn.€1991);€òòò òLeake€v.€Airport€Toyota€of€Memphis,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€02A01„9208„CV„0023,€1993€WL€360443€(Tenn.€App.€Sept.€14,€1993).€€Ìà àò òòòPaty€v.€Herb€Adcox€Chevrolet€Co.óóó ó,€756€S.W.2d€697€(Tenn.€App.€1988),€isÏinstructive€in€this€case.€€In€òòò òPatyó óóó,€the€plaintiff€purchased€a€ð ðnewðð€demonstrator€car€with€3,200Ïmiles€on€it.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€698.€€The€car€had€previously€been€damaged€in€a€wreck€and€repaired,€and€theÏdealer€did€not€disclose€this€fact€to€the€plaintiff.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€Upon€discovering€the€prior€damage€and€repair,Ïthe€plaintiff€€sued€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€and€won€a€jury€verdict.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€OnÏappeal,€this€Court€€found€that€it€was€deceptive€and€a€violation€of€the€Act€for€the€defendant€to€sell€aÏpreviously€wrecked€and€repaired€car€as€new€without€informing€the€purchaser.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€699.Ìà àPryor€seeks€to€distinguish€òòò òPatyó óóó€by€arguing€that€the€car€in€that€case€had€ò òòòinternaló óóó€damage,Ïwhile€the€car€the€Colemans€bought€had€a€defect€which€was€clearly€visible.€€In€ò òòòPatyó óóó,€however,Ïthere€is€no€indication€whether€the€damage€was€visible€upon€inspection€or€how€the€plaintiff€learnedÏof€it.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€defective€paint€ð ðwas€visible€on€a€careful€inspection,Ïbut€the€plaintiffs€saw€the€car€in€dim€lightðð€prior€to€purchase€and€ð ðthe€defect€was€not€easily€visible€atÏthat€time.ðð̜Ǜà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Pryorððs€failure€to€tell€the€Colemans€about€the€repairs€to€the€vehicleÏviolated€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„104(b)(6):ÌÓÓà8 àThis€was€a€violation€of€ðð€47„18„104(6)€[sic]€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€ProtectionÏAct€which€forbids€the€representation€that€goods€are€original€or€new€if€they€areÏdeteriorated,€altered€to€the€point€of€decreasing€the€value,€or€reconditioned.€€This€carÏfell€in€all€of€those€categories€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓWe€agree€with€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àAffirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€Appellant,€for€which€execution€may€issueÏif€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.Ìó óÌÌò òÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SR.€J.Ìó ó