ÿWPC×! []s‘O”kÙåÃ¥Ï瘗G÷ù‡ƒ ÉíWM£Ë”þNFÕ–q½ÆîJVcÈ¡˜ 2·ò;•[ÈŠ¸ˆëg/…ºGGÙ¯?×úcÏËÙGà¶ U?µ½Å®«—¬0#´#‰øQ¤þ¢“rŸ=™ªÒ*ú¤#ò{{}²±%\’åô»–D‹M[€}ˆ7üB°‘ ïqÓòz¸äà‚=gb'Á{Ç®-=‡HÔ&’ÆV‘õË ÚyØ«Ñ}¤°HV<Æ•ÛAúÅ@æ]àRF*\Sè#VKÀ‘,Yu#K‘1 ~ÚQÉB†¢y9I` ,ØÓŽ·Š"­# È[Ço˜µZ.Jó6MågªÀeL!ƒe³AçV® c†Ñ\aì¼aJ^9íùJ²ÿ_1h§ÜrÒe¸æ^½ð¤+ôíUZÀ¬®ÜFðZéýMtM¢Á¤–rö¤tµ >¶–QäKº%H$Ϻ„U ‚A%*# LUNW %¥ 0š«w@E4…™È¨ 0Þp 0DN’UNšËèγ΅ËSU: BX AQuÆÆ 0DŒ 0DÐ 0D!! D/X!X! B‡! D3¤!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(r7$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÓ  Ó ëìDíïVðVñVòVóDôÓ€þìu[%3|xþ ¾Ý ƒ ´Q$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€In€ò òòòGanzevoort€v.€Russelló óóó,€949€S.W.2d€293,€297„98€(Tenn.€1997),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ° ÐCourt€held€that€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€does€not€apply€to€the€purchase€of€real€estate€from€aÏseller€who€is€not€ð ðin€the€business€of€selling€property€as€owners€or€brokers.ðð€€This€issue€was€not€raisedÏto€the€trial€court€and€the€record€does€not€indicate€whether€Bryan€was€in€the€business€of€selling€logÏhomes€or€whether€the€log€home€would€be€considered€realty.€€Consequently,€we€will€not€address€theÏapplicability€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€in€this€appeal.€€ò òòòCf.€Murvin€v.€Coferó óóó,€No.€03A01„9702„Ð ` ° ÐCH„00055,ò ò€ó ó1997€WL€752648,€at€*5€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€8,€1997)€(in€a€case€that€was€tried€before€theÐ P   Ðò òòòGanzevoortó óóó€decision,€the€defendants,€who€did€not€raise€the€issue€of€the€Actððs€inapplicability€at€trial,Ð @  Ðdid€not€waive€raising€the€issue€on€appeal,€since€the€defendantsðð€Answer€ð ðhad€the€effect€of€denyingÏeach€and€every€element€of€the€plaintiffsðð€alleged€cause€of€actionðð).€€€(Ž(3´Q$¤¤Ý ƒ7!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ÁÝ ƒ ´Q$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€Bryanððs€brief€appears€to€suggest€that€attorneyððs€fees€are€not€appropriate€unless€the€evidenceÐ ° Ðdemonstrates€a€ð ðwillfull€or€knowing€violation.ðð€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„18„109(e)(1)€doesÏnot€require€a€showing€that€the€defendantððs€actions€were€a€ð ðwillful€or€knowing€violationðð€in€order€forÏattorneyððs€fees€to€be€awarded.€€ò òòòCf.ó óóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3)€(1995).€€It€simply€requiresÐ €Ð Ða€showing€that€a€provision€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€has€been€violated.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€47„18„109(e)(1). ÄÝ ƒ ´Q$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€In€ò òòòGanzevoort€v.€Russelló óóó,€949€S.W.2d€293,€297„98€(Tenn.€1997),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ° ÐCourt€held€that€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€does€not€apply€to€the€purchase€of€real€estate€from€aÏseller€who€is€not€ð ðin€the€business€of€selling€property€as€owners€or€brokers.€.€.€.ðð€€This€issue€was€notÏraised€to€the€trial€court€and€the€record€does€not€indicate€whether€Bryan€was€in€the€business€of€sellingÏlog€homes€or€whether€the€log€home€would€be€considered€realty.€€Consequently,€we€will€not€addressÏthe€applicability€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€in€this€appeal.€€ò òòòCf.€Murvin€v.€Coferó óóó,€No.€03A01„Ð ` ° Ð9702„CH„00055,ò ò€ó ó1997€WL€752648,€at€*5€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€8,€1997)€(in€a€case€that€was€tried€beforeÐ P   Ðthe€ò òòòGanzevoortó óóó€decision,€the€defendants,€who€did€not€raise€the€issue€of€the€Actððs€inapplicability€atÐ @  Ðtrial,€did€not€waive€raising€the€issue€on€appeal,€since€the€defendantsðð€Answer€ð ðhad€the€effect€ofÏdenying€each€and€every€element€of€the€plaintiffsðð€alleged€cause€of€actionðð).€€€ úÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XµTXXXÔÔ€*ZXXµTÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XµTX*ZÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€15,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó ÄÝ ƒ ´Q$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€In€ò òòòGanzevoort€v.€Russelló óóó,€949€S.W.2d€293,€297„98€(Tenn.€1997),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ° ÐCourt€held€that€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€does€not€apply€to€the€purchase€of€real€estate€from€aÏseller€who€is€not€ð ðin€the€business€of€selling€property€as€owners€or€brokers.€.€.€.ðð€€This€issue€was€notÏraised€to€the€trial€court€and€the€record€does€not€indicate€whether€Bryan€was€in€the€business€of€sellingÏlog€homes€or€whether€the€log€home€would€be€considered€realty.€€Consequently,€we€will€not€addressÏthe€applicability€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€in€this€appeal.€€ò òòòCf.€Murvin€v.€Coferó óóó,€No.€03A01„Ð ` ° Ð9702„CH„00055,ò ò€ó ó1997€WL€752648,€at€*5€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.€8,€1997)€(in€a€case€that€was€tried€beforeÐ P   Ðthe€ò òòòGanzevoortó óóó€decision,€the€defendants,€who€did€not€raise€the€issue€of€the€Actððs€inapplicability€atÐ @  Ðtrial,€did€not€waive€raising€the€issue€on€appeal,€since€the€defendantsðð€Answer€ð ðhad€the€effect€ofÏdenying€each€and€every€element€of€the€plaintiffsðð€alleged€cause€of€actionðð).€€€ ÁÝ ƒ ´Q$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€Bryanððs€brief€appears€to€suggest€that€attorneyððs€fees€are€not€appropriate€unless€the€evidenceÐ ° Ðdemonstrates€a€ð ðwillfull€or€knowing€violation.ðð€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„18„109(e)(1)€doesÏnot€require€a€showing€that€the€defendantððs€actions€were€a€ð ðwillful€or€knowing€violationðð€in€order€forÏattorneyððs€fees€to€be€awarded.€€ò òòòCf.ó óóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3)€(1995).€€It€simply€requiresÐ €Ð Ða€showing€that€a€provision€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€has€been€violated.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€47„18„109(e)(1).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ7!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓÓÑ7€ŒåXXdðXXdð7Ññôñ›ñôññþññôñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` 8ttxP°ð  rßñôññþññþññþññôñ›ñôñÌò òÔ‡ X8sXXXÔà@ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ  ð Ðò òñþñœßt€ )>.*jx[ÿw` `€€@E#` 8ttxP[Œð w tß›ñþñà@úú$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ ŒÜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð xÈ ÐÌóóÌBRAXTON€œD.€DIXON,›€à  à€€€€à h à€€€à À à)à  àÐ < Œ Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ( x Ðà  àPlaintiff/Appellee,€€€€€€€€ò òà h àà À à)à  àó óSumner€Circuit€No.€€16102„C€€€Ð  d Ðò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óà  àà p àÐ  T  Ðò òv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Ð ð @  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Ü,  ÐSTEVE€BRYAN,€€€€€€€€€€€à  àà h à€à À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9707„CV„00371ò òÐ È  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óDefendant/Appellant.à  àà h àò òà À à)à  àÐ ¤ô  ЀÌÌà@þþìàó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SUMNER€COUNTY€€€ˆÐ l¼ Ðà@ÇÇìàAT€GALLATIN,€TENNESSEE€€ˆÌÌÌà@‡ ‡ ìàTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€GOODALL,€JUDGEˆÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:à  àòòà h àà À àFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:Ô#†XŒåXX X8s€#ÔÔ‡ X8sXXXŒåÔòòÐ Ì ÐóóÌC.€Tracey€Parks€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€William€Kennerly€BurgerÐ ¤ô ÐGallatin,€Tennessee€€€à ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€à À àMurfreesboro,€Tennessee€€€€€€€Ð à Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌò òÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMEDÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð ð%@!$ ÐÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.Ð x+È&* ÐÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÔ#†XŒåXX X8sg #ÔÌÐ  0h+/ ÐØØÓÓÑ7€ŒåXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@55'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° Ðó óà  àThis€is€an€action€brought€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€The€suit€arose€outÐ à Ðof€a€contract€to€sell€an€antebellum€log€home€to€be€dismantled€and€moved.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏthe€defendant€knowingly€engaged€in€a€deceptive€trade€practice,€and€awarded€the€plaintiff€trebleÏdamages€and€attorneyððs€fees.€€We€affirm.Ìà  àIn€June€1995,€Defendant/Appellant€Steve€Bryan€(ð ðBryanðð)€placed€an€advertisement€in€aÏpublication,€the€òòTraders€Postóó,€reading€in€pertinent€part:€ð ð2€story€Cedar€Dog€Trot€Log€House€„€To€beÐ ð@  Ðmoved€„€$5000€.€.€.ðð€€The€home,€built€in€approximately€1820,€was€located€in€Bedford€County.€ÏPlaintiff/Appellee€Braxton€Dixon€(ð ðDixonðð)€responded€to€the€advertisement.€€Dixon€is€a€builder€andÏa€designer€who€specializes€in€the€restoration,€preservation,€and€relocation€of€antebellum€structures.€ÏDixon€and€Bryan€discussed€the€sale€of€the€log€home.€€Dixon€alleges€that€Bryan€told€him€that€heÏowned€the€log€home€and€ð ðsigned€a€statement€to€that€effect.ððÌà  àThe€parties€orally€agreed€that€Dixon€would€purchase€the€home€for€$4000.€€Dixon€tenderedÏ$2000€in€cash€to€Bryan€and€agreed€to€pay€the€remainder€after€the€house€was€dismantled.€€ToÏdocument€the€transaction,€Dixon€signed€a€sales€agreement€entitled€ð ðAgreement€and€Bill€of€Sale,ðð€Ï(ð ðAgreementðð).€€The€Agreement€listed€Mrs.€W.€D.€Haynes€(ð ðHaynesðð)€as€the€ð ðseller.ðð€€Haynes€hadÏnot€signed€the€Agreement.€€Ìà  àDixon€arranged€to€œresell›€the€œlog€home›€to€a€purchaser€in€Texas€and€made€preparations€for€theÏhomeððs€dismantling€and€shipment.€€At€the€site€of€the€log€home,€before€the€œdismantling€was›Ïcompleted,€Dixon€was€confronted€by€a€local€realtor.€€The€realtor€told€Dixon€that€Haynes€owned€theÏhome€and€that€the€realtor€had€listed€the€property€for€sale.€€Dixon€immediately€stopped€hisÏpreparations€for€dismantling€and€transporting€the€log€home.Ìà  àDixon€later€learned€that€Bryan€had€been€trying€for€some€time€to€purchase€the€home€fromÏHaynes.€€Bryanððs€draft€purchase€contracts,€submitted€to€Haynes,€had€been€rejected.€€After€BryanÏobtained€the€$2,000€deposit€from€Dixon,€he€had€a€$1,000€cashierððs€check€drawn€to€Haynes€andÏsought€to€meet€with€her€to€obtain€permission€to€sell€the€log€home€and€consummate€the€transaction.€ÏBryan€was€unable€to€meet€with€Haynes.Ìà  àIn€addition€to€the€$2,000€paid€to€Bryan,€Dixon€incurred€expenses€originally€estimated€atÏ$863.€€Bryan€agreed€to€return€the€$2,000€to€Dixon€and€pay€him€$863€in€expenses€incurred.€€Bryan€œñïñÐ  09€48 Ðñïñrepaid›€the€$2,000€deposit€to€Dixon€but€did€not€pay€the€expenses.€€Dixon€later€determined€that€hisÏexpenses€totaled€$1,038,66.Ìà  àDixon€filed€this€action€in€Sumner€County€General€Sessions€court€to€recover€his€damagesÏfrom€Bryanððs€alleged€breach€of€contract€and€misrepresentation.€€Dixon€also€sought€treble€damagesÏand€attorneyððs€fees€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€(ð ðConsumer€Protection€œActðð)›€œò òòòSeeÐ 0 € Ðó óóóTennessee›€Code€Annotated€ðððð€47„18„101€et€seq.€(1995€&€Supp.€1997).€€Default€judgment€wasÐ `  Ðentered€in€General€Sessions€court,€and€the€case€was€appealed€to€Circuit€Court.€€Ìà  àFollowing€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€found€that€Dixon€suffered€damages€totaling€$1,038.77.€ÏThe€trial€court€also€found€that€Bryan€ð ðknowingly€engaged€in€a€deceptive€trade€practice.ðð€ÏConsequently,€the€trial€court€awarded€Dixon€treble€damages€and€attorneyððs€fees€under€the€ConsumerÏProtection€Act.€€The€trial€court,€however,€found€that€Dixon€was€negligent€in€not€carefully€readingÏthe€Agreement,€and€reduced€Dixonððs€damages€by€ten€percent.€€Thus,€Bryan€was€awarded€a€total€ofÏ$2,804.68,€plus€$775€in€attorneyððs€fees.€€From€this€order,€Bryan€appeals.Ìà  àOn€appeal,€Bryan€contends€that€treble€damages€under€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€wereÏinappropriate.€€Bryan€asserts€that€since€the€record€contains€no€proof€of€any€actual€intent€to€deceiveÏor€mislead,€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€awarding€treble€damages.Ìà  àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€accompaniedÐ °"  Ðby€a€presumption€of€correctness€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.ÏCiv.€P.€13(d).€€Questions€of€law€are€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòò òCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,Ð p&À!$ Ð900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).ò òòòÐ P( #& Ðà  àó óóóThe€Consumer€Protection€Act,€enacted€in€1977,€is€ð ðto€be€liberally€construed€to€protectÐ 0*€%( Ðconsumers€and€others€from€those€who€engage€in€deceptive€acts€or€practices.ðð€€ò òòòMorris€v.€MackððsÐ ,`'* ÐUsed€Carsó óóó,€824€S.W.2d€538,€540€(Tenn.€œ1992)€(citing€ò òòòHaverlah€v.€Memphis€Aviation,€Inc.ó óóó,€674Ð ð-@), ÐS.W.2d€297,€305€(Tenn.€App.€1985).›€€Persons€harmed€as€a€result€of€ð ðan€unfair€or€deceptive€act€orÏpractice€declared€to€be€œunlawfulñéñ.€.€.€ñéñðð›€by€the€Act€may€recover€actual€damages.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ47„18„¼109(a)(1)€(1995).›€€The€trial€court€may€also€award€attorneyððs€fees.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€47„18„109(e)(1).€€If€the€trialÐ 3à.2 Ðcourt€finds€that€the€defendant€ð ðwillful[ly]€or€knowing[ly]ðð€violated€the€Act,€the€plaintiff€may€beÏawarded€treble€damages.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3).€€Factors€to€be€considered€in€determining€whether€œñðñÐ  P7 26 Ðñðñto›€award€treble€damages€include:ÌÓÓà8  à(A)€€The€competence€of€the€consumer€or€other€person;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(B)€€The€nature€of€the€deception€or€coercion€practiced€upon€the€consumer€or€otherÏperson;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(C)€€The€damage€to€the€consumer€or€other€person;€andÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(D)€The€good€faith€of€the€person€found€to€have€violated€the€provisions€of€this€part.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌò òòòÓÓId.ó óóó€ðð€47„18„109(a)(4).Ð 0 € Ðà  àBryan€does€not€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Dixon€actual€damages€under€theÏConsumer€Protection€Act.œñêññíñ׃×ñíññíñ׃×ñíññêññêñ׃×ñêñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€Bryan€contends€that€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€he€ð ðwillful[ly]€andÐ ð@  Ðknowing[ly]ðð€violated€the€Act,€and€that€therefore€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€treble€damages.Ð Ð  Мò òòòId.ñëñ€ñëñóóó óñëñTenn.›€Code€Ann.ñëñ€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3).€€The€linchpin€of€Bryanððs€argument€is€that€Dixon€signed€the€Agreement,€whichÐ ° Ðlisted€Haynes,€rather€than€Bryan,€as€the€seller.€€At€trial,€Dixon€testified€that€he€did€not€read€theÏAgreement€before€signing€it.€€However,€Bryan€notes€that€Dixon€corrected€the€spelling€of€his€nameÏin€the€document.€€In€addition,€Bryan€argues€that€Mary€Ann€McConnell€(ð ðMcConnellðð),€a€consultantÏof€Dixon,€testified€at€trial€that€she€ð ðquestionedðð€the€document.€€Bryan€asserts€that€Dixonððs€signingÏof€the€Agreement€imputes€him€with€notice€that€Haynes,€not€Bryan,€was€the€seller.ÌÓÓà  àBryan€notes€case€law€holding€that,€in€the€absence€of€fraud,€a€person€who:ÌÌ›à8  àœñìñ.€.€.€ñìñfails›€to€read€the€contract€or€otherwise€to€learn€its€contents,€.€.€.€signs€the€same€at€hisÏperil€and€is€estopped€to€deny€his€obligation,€[and€thus]€will€be€conclusively€presumedÏto€know€the€contents€of€the€contract,€and€must€suffer€the€consequences€of€his€ownÏnegligence.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌò òòòÓÓGiles€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€871€S.W.2d€154,€156€(Tenn.€App.€1993)€(quoting€ò òòòBeasley€v.€MetropolitanÐ €%Ð # ÐLife€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€190€Tenn.€227,€œñêñò òó óñêñ232,›€229€S.W.2d€146,€148€(1950)).€€Bryan€also€cites€the€axiom€thatÐ `'°"% Ðð ðno€man€can€recover€upon€the€theory€of€fraud€or€mistake€with€respect€to€any€matter€of€fact€aboutÏwhich€he€has€actual€knowledge€or€legally€imputed€knowledge.ðð€€ò òòòHill€v.€John€Banks€Buick,€Inc.ó óóó,Ð  +p&) Ð875€S.W.2d€667,€670€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€Bryan€reasons€that€since€Dixon€had€legal€notice€of€the€fact€œñññÐ  -P(+ Ðñññthat›€Haynes€was€the€real€owner,€by€virtue€of€the€Agreement,€Bryan€could€not€have€been€deceptiveÏand,€thus,€was€not€liable€under€the€Act.Ìà  àHowever,€in€the€cases€cited€by€Bryan,€the€issue€was€whether€the€contract€should€be€enforced,Ïas€ð ðwhere€one€who€has€negligently€signed€a€contact€without€reading€it,€seeks€to€avoid€hisÏœobligation....ðð€€ò òòòGilesó óóó,›€œ871›€S.W2d€at€œ157;›€ò òòòsee,€e.g.,€Beasleyó óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó;€òòò òCravens€v.€Cravensó óóó,€54€Tenn.Ð 0 € ÐApp.€487,€392€S.W.2d€825€(1965);€ò òòòHermitage€Health€&€Ins.€Co.€v.€Buchignanió óóó,€49€Tenn.€App.Ð `  Ð223,€354€S.W.2d€94€(1961).€€Here,€there€is€no€issue€regarding€whether€the€contract€should€beÏenforced.€€Rather,€the€issue€is€whether€Bryan€should€be€immunized€from€liability€œunder€the›ÏConsumer€Protection€Act,€regardless€of€€any€deceptive€or€fraudulent€actions€that€he€may€haveÏperpetrated.€€In€this€case,€there€was€evidence€from€which€the€trial€court€could€conclude€that€BryanÏaffirmatively€misrepresented€that€the€owned€œñóñtñóñhe›€log€home€and€that,€consequently,€he€had€the€authorityÏto€sell€it.€€The€terms€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€are€quite€broad€and€are€to€be€liberally€construedÏto€protect€the€consumer.€€€ò òòòSeeó óóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ47„18„104€(1995);›€ò òòòMorrisó óóó,€824€S.W.2d€at€540.€Ð 0€ ÐUnder€these€circumstances,€the€fact€that€Haynes€was€listed€in€the€Agreement€as€the€owner€of€the€logÏhome€does€not€immunize€Bryan€from€liability€for€Dixonððs€damages.à  àÐ ð@ Ðà  àNo€issue€on€appeal€has€been€raised€regarding€the€trial€courtððs€reduction€of€damages€awardedÏto€Dixon€based€on€Dixonððs€negligence€in€failing€to€read€the€Agreement.€€Ìà  àIn€this€case,€there€is€ample€evidence€from€which€the€trial€court€could€conclude€that€Bryan€Ïwillfully€and€knowingly€engaged€in€deceptive€practices.€€Ô‡ XhaXXXŒËÔThe€trial€court€was€in€the€best€position€toÐ p&À!$ Ðconsider€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and,€thus,€its€findings€are€entitled€to€ð ðconsiderable€deference.ðð€Ïò òòòTenn„Tex€Properties€v.€Brownell„Electro,€Inc.,ó óóó€778€S.W.2d€423,€425„26€(Tenn.€1989).€€TheÐ H*˜%( Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Bryan€ð ðknowingly€engaged€inÏa€deceptive€trade€practice.ðð€€Consequently,€the€awarding€of€treble€damages€and€attorneyððs€feesœñêñ׃ ×ñêññêñ׃×ñêñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€wasÐ ø-H), Ðappropriate€in€accordance€with€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3)Ï&€œ(e)(1)€(1995).Ô#†XŒËXX XhaÕ3#ԛР¨1ø,0 МñòñÐ  €3Ð.2 Ðñòñ›à  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant,€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓÔ‡ XhaXXXŒËÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð P   Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð < Œ Ðó óà  àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ø(  ÐóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.Ð Ä  ÐÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ˆØ ÐALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ó óÔ#†XŒËXX Xhaî7#ÔÐ tÄ Ð