ÿWPCÔ öKm-—¼NŸ`øŸ0x>³é/@ý‹+@¹|ט^ÜU|˜G¬\/O•î‘Qðòù+ÛñŸS-i*¼Öç¨éRm¡µ?R¼†xÜQÊàᵃN:§ù >™ù¥;Ñ\¢:°U~–28Ô;8Z¶Áæa1²Ñ“(˜äÔSPº  å¬Bo¬Øþ|Q¨>¤Û¸òn [Uત0»Ä‡>iÚ^aî™:­Âû #>(‘H3ú`ò­J(Û(O# K_» †f7õ­-ÖrÖíçÿì÷bàpõI© °ƒÓ1L}Ä(.4ºÎ†êˆ[#­ Áâ»Ô>ÈÕß÷ŠÙ±5ÔL+rÑþ ØalC€–±a™fC°£‚‹±{¾Ãb-ý^ËlëÂH9W®§îÚ3͹<ª[´ V•€8Üqi˜¨2Œ¸75ÅÆ¦Òë¬Ä ­r¢Q>·!œº§û7OëG'´}ÓëcÄ0šì—©cùB‰~9µHÝ7°‚§LÊù{?Ñ^‚Ügþ1C*6ê'Px<£û/§¦”Uua;Ÿiµ×øˆï¤u¥S^±´õF§Tjh‡»×‰/,¨IÝ Jƒ­?Wc Ê=?쇾ýoJ>‡¼AƒÈb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'UNíN;ð=w-E¤#¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦bÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ 0ëÑÑÑÑ B¼¼ 0¤Ù D3} D-° 0KÝÝ AS(Æ{ 0¤A 0Då A«)˜HP LaserJet 4 Plus,ð,,,,,ð0»‚“o-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularä]ö,8£ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular æÝ ƒRð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÕÔò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPlaintiff€sued€other€defendants€but€the€remaining€defendants,€except€Mactronics,€Inc.,€were€non„suited.€ mÝ ƒRð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÕÔò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€before€us€does€not€contain€depositions.€€However,€there€does€not€appear€to€be€any€dispute€betweenÐ ° Ðthe€parties€that€questions€and€answers€contained€in€the€transcript€are€accurate€portrayals€of€the€depositions. Ý ƒRð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÕÔò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Sam€testified€that€his€actual€name€is€Ô_ÔSinaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSanadÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔZadahÔ_Ô.- ù-(|G2ð$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·,»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÕÔò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·,»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·,»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€·,»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼·,»»»ÔÑ8€¥KXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îï/·,ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼·,»îîï/ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€On€Brief€August€28,€2002€Ð X ÐÔ‡X¥KX»¼·,ÔÌò òÔ#†¼·,»XX¥Ký#ÔÔ_ÔHGIÔ_Ô€ASSOCIATES,€INC.€òòóóv.€Ô_ÔMACTRONICSÔ_Ô,€INC.€Ô‡X¥KX»¼·,Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CT„003845„00€€€€€€John€R.€Ô_ÔMcCarrollÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2002„00011„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€15,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X÷<XXX¥KÔPlaintiff€was€awarded€a€judgment€for€breach€of€contract€and€incidental€damages€in€the€amount€ofÐ ¶ Ð$18,356.€€The€breach€occurred€when€Defendant€(Seller)€was€unable€to€deliver€500€computers€whichÐ ¢ò ÐPlaintiff€(Buyer)€had€contracted€to€purchase.€€Plaintiff€appeals€contending€that€the€damages€awardedÐ ŽÞ Ðby€the€trial€court€were€inadequate.€€We€affirm.Ô#†X¥KXXX÷<+#ÔÔ#†¼·,»XX¥K²#ÔÔ‡X¥KX»¼·,Ôà  àÐ zÊ ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€andÐ V¦ ÐRemandedó óÐ F– ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼·,»àX¥K #ÔÔ‡X¥KX.¼·,ÔDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô,óóÐ &v Ðand€òòHolly€K.€Ô_ÔLillardÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð f ÐÌWilliam€A.€Cohn,€Cordova,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔHGIÔ_Ô€Associates,€Inc.Ð öF ÐÌRex€L.€Ô_ÔBrasherÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Ô_ÔMactronicsÔ_Ô,€Inc.,€Ð Ö& ÐÓýÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼·,»XX¥K,#ÔÔ‡X¥KX»¼·,ÔÐ ¶  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼·,»XX¥KË #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¥KX»¼·,ÔÔ‡X÷<XXX¥KÔà  àThe€plaintiff,€Ô_ÔHGIÔ_Ô€Associates,€Inc.€(Ô_ÔHGIÔ_Ô)€entered€into€a€contract€to€purchase€500€computersÐ –"æ! Ðfrom€defendant€Ô_ÔMactronicsÔ_Ô,€Inc.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€at€$320€each.€€Ô_ÔHGIÔ_Ô€had€a€contract€to€sell€the€computers€to€itsÐ ‚#Ò" Ðcustomer€for€$355€each.€€Ô_ÔMactronicsÔ_Ô€was€unable€to€deliver€due€to€the€fact€that€it€was€unable€to€obtainÐ n$¾# Ðdelivery€from€its€seller.Ð Z%ª $ ÐÌà  àBeing€dissatisfied€with€the€judgment€awarded€following€a€bench€trial,€Ô_ÔHGIÔ_Ô€appeals€to€thisÐ 2'‚"& ÐCourt€and€presents€its€issues€as€follows:Ð (n#' ÐÌà8  à1.à0` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€the€difference€in€the€purchase€priceÐ ö)F%) Ðand€the€price€of€the€proposed€sale€by€the€plaintiff€to€a€prospective€buyer€inÐ â*2&*ýi ÐÔ_Ôlieu€of€the€mandated€damages€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€47„2„713€of€the€differenceÐ ° Ðbetween€the€purchase€price€and€the€market€value.Мì` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.à0` Ð Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€inappropriately€excluded€certain€incidental€andÐ tÄ Ðconsequential€expenses€from€the€judgment.Ð`°` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€this€matter€is€òòò òde€novoóóó ó€upon€the€record€with€the€presumption€that€the€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact€are€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.Ð $ t ÐApp.€P.€13(d).€€Our€review€of€questions€of€law€is€òòò òde€novoóóó ó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€givenÐ  ` Ðto€the€lower€courtððs€judgments.€€òòò òSee€Nelson€v.€Wal„mart€Stores,€Inc.óóó ó,€8€S.W.3d€625,€628€(Tenn.Ð ü L  Ð1999).€€The€findings€of€the€trial€court€which€are€dependent€upon€determining€the€credibility€ofÐ è 8  Ðwitnesses€are€entitled€to€great€weight€on€appeal.€€òòò òSee€Town€of€Alamo€v.€Forcum„James€Co.óóó ó,€327Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.2d€47,€49€(Tenn.€1959).€€The€trial€court€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses€and€toÐ À  Ðassess€their€demeanor.€€Therefore,€this€court€will€not€reevaluate€a€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€aÐ ¬ü  Ðwitnesses€credibility€in€the€absence€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€òòò òSee€Wells€v.Ð ˜è  ÐTennessee€Bd.€of€Regentsóóó ó,€9€S.W.3d€779,€783€(Tenn.€1999).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àHGI€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€award€the€proper€measure€of€damages€as€set€forthÐ \¬ Ðin€T.C.A.€ðð€47„2„713€which€provides€as€follows:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àò òBuyerððs€damages€for€nondelivery€or€repudiation.ó ó€ð!ð€(1)€Subject€to€the€provisionsÐ  p Ðof€this€chapter€with€respect€to€proof€of€market€price€(ðð€47„2„723),€the€measure€ofÐ ` Ðdamages€for€nondelivery€or€repudiation€by€the€seller€is€the€difference€between€theÐ üL Ðmarket€price€at€the€time€when€the€buyer€learned€of€the€breach€and€the€contract€priceÐ è8 Ðtogether€with€any€incidental€and€consequential€damages€provided€in€this€chapter€(ððÐ Ô$ Ð47„2„715),€but€less€expenses€saved€in€consequence€of€the€sellerððs€breach.ÐÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€Market€price€is€to€be€determined€as€of€the€place€for€tender€or,€in€cases€ofÐ ¬ü Ðrejection€after€arrival€or€revocation€of€acceptance,€as€of€the€place€of€arrival.ИèÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„2„713€(2001).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€awarded€Plaintiff€a€judgment€in€the€amount€of€$18,356.€€This€was€based€onÐ H!˜ Ðthe€difference€between€the€purchase€price€of€$320€and€the€price€of€the€proposed€sale€which€theÐ 4"„  ÐPlaintiff€had€arranged€with€its€prospective€buyer€of€$355€per€computer,€a€difference€of€$35€per€unitÐ  #p! Ðtimes€500€units€for€a€total€of€$17,500.€€In€addition,€Plaintiff€was€awarded€$800€for€travel€expensesÐ  $\" Ðand€$56€in€expenses€incurred€in€a€wire€transfer€fee.€€It€is€Plaintiffððs€contention€that€the€evidenceÐ ø$H # Ðsupports€a€market€price€of€$400€per€unit€which€would€result€in€damages€of€$80€per€unit€or€$40,000.Ð ä%4!$ ÐÌà  àRon€Schwartz,€president€of€HGI,€testified€that€he€arrived€in€Memphis€on€Tuesday,€JanuaryÐ ¼' #& Ð20,€2000,€to€inspect€the€units.€€Had€the€units€passed€his€inspection,€he€would€have€madeÐ ¨(ø#' Ðarrangements€to€ship€the€units€to€HGIððs€customer.€€However,€when€he€arrived€he€was€advised€byÐ ”)ä$( ÐDavid€Neese,€representative€of€Mactronics,€that€the€units€had€not€arrived€from€Mactronicsðð€seller.€Ð €*Ð%) ÐMr.€Neese€made€several€phone€calls€to€Mactronicððs€seller€to€no€avail.€€Mr.€Schwartz€testified€thatÐ l+¼&* Ðhe€realized€the€following€Thursday€that€the€units€were€not€going€to€be€there.€€As€a€result€of€thisÐ ° Ðnondelivery,€HGI€refunded€its€buyer€$177,500€(500€units€times€$355).Ð œì ÐÌà  àAs€set€forth€in€the€statute,€the€measure€of€damages€for€nondelivery€by€seller€is€the€differenceÐ tÄ Ðbetween€the€market€price€at€the€time€that€the€buyer€learned€of€the€breach€and€the€contract€priceÐ `° Ðtogether€with€any€incidental€and€consequential€damages.€€Market€price€is€to€be€determined€as€of€theÐ L œ Ðplace€for€tender.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„2„713€(2001).€€The€key€issue€is€when€did€the€plaintiff€knowÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€the€contract€had€been€breached.€€òòò òSee€Hurt€v.€Earnhartóóó ó,€539€S.W.2d€133,€137€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð $ t Ð1976).€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€this€record€indicates€that€Plaintiff€did€not€present€evidence€of€a€market€priceÐ è 8  Ðother€than€the€price€of€$355€per€unit€as€determined€by€the€trial€court.€€The€only€witnesses€to€testifyÐ Ô$  Ðwere€Mr.€Schwartz€and€two€representatives€of€the€Defendant.€€Mr.€Schwartz€testified€that€he€did€notÐ À  Ðremember€what€the€market€price€was€at€the€time€of€the€breach.€€He€also€testified€that€he€attemptedÐ ¬ü  Ðto€find€replacement€units€in€order€to€be€able€to€fulfill€the€contract€with€HGIððs€buyer,€but€was€unableÐ ˜è  Ðto€do€so.€€Therefore,€to€support€its€theory,€Plaintiff€relies€upon€the€testimony€of€DefendantððsÐ „Ô  Ðwitnesses.€€David€Neese,€sales€agent€manager€for€Mactronics,€was€cross„examined€from€hisÐ pÀ Ðdeposition.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€Neese€was€asked€if€he€was€able€to€find€replacement€computers€at€the€contract€priceÐ \¬ Ðand€he€replied€that€he€was€not.€€He€stated,€ð ð[t]o€be€honest,€we€couldnððt€find€the€quantity.€€NobodyÐ H˜ Ðhad€the€product€we€needed€or€if€somebody€had€them,€they€were€probably€over€$400.ðð€€Mr.€MikeÐ 4„ ÐSam,׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€president€of€Mactronics,€testified€Ð  p ÐÌà8  à[w]ell,€we€gaged€our€price€at€what€to€sell€it€in€the€market€for.€€We€gaged€it€based€onÐ øH Ðwhat€we€saw€in€the€market€that€the€product€was€selling€for.€€Now,€„€„€just€to€defineÐ ä4 Ðmarket,€there€are€different€definitions.€€A€broker€market,€like,€with€what€Ron€and€IÐ Ð  Ðwere€dealing€in,€the€price€would€be€similar€between€340€to€350€to€get€easily.€€Ð¼ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIn€a€market€where,€I€would€just€have€to€go€ahead€and€buy€it€immediately€fromÐ ”ä Ða€„€„€what€I€would€call€a€small€retail€shop€or€something€that€sells€used€„€„€wouldÐ €Ð Ðprobably€be€somewhere€in€the€vicinity€of€$400€to€$425.€€Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€market€price€at€the€time€the€buyer€learned€of€the€breachÐ D!” Ðwas€$355,€the€price€per€unit€at€which€HGI€had€contracted€to€sell€to€its€buyer.€€We€do€not€find€theÐ 0"€  Ðevidence€to€preponderate€against€this€finding€by€the€trial€court.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àHGI€further€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€award€it€the€additional€sum€ofÐ ô$D # Ð$95,505€for€loss€of€business€for€a€period€of€15€months€following€this€failed€transaction.€€Mr.Ð à%0!$ ÐSchwartz€testified€that€the€transaction€upon€which€HGI€defaulted€as€a€result€of€nondelivery€byÐ Ì&"% ÐMactronics€resulted€in€that€customer€not€doing€business€with€HGI€for€some€15€months€followingÐ ° ÐHGIððs€breach€on€its€contract€to€resell€the€computers.€€He€testified€as€to€profits€his€firm€had€realizedÐ œì Ðfrom€sales€to€that€customer€prior€to€this€breach€and€extrapolated€that€similar€profits€would€have€beenÐ ˆØ Ðrealized€had€the€customer€done€business€with€HGI€in€the€interim€15€months.€€€However,€Mr.Ð tÄ ÐSchwartz€also€testified€that€he€did€not€have€any€other€contracts€with€that€customer€at€that€time€whichÐ `° Ðwere€cancelled.€€There€was€no€testimony€from€that€customer€as€to€why€they€did€not€do€business€withÐ L œ ÐHGI€for€that€15€month€period.€€We€believe€that€this€basis€for€damage€is€speculative€and€find€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrial€court€did€not€err€in€failing€to€award€additional€damages.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àBased€upon€our€review€of€this€record,€we€do€not€find€the€evidence€to€preponderate€againstÐ ü L  Ðthe€trial€courtððs€findings€and€the€judgment€entered€below€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxedÐ è 8  Ðto€HGI€Associates,€Inc.,€and€its€surety.Ô#†X¥KXXX÷