ÿWPCs% …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 UP@ 0l 0Dü 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Þ 0h< 0r¤ 0| 0†’ 0 1u¨ B: 0dB D3¦U >ÙU6 0@MB)DC¶ AMùU*F p|~ î‡ôui¸lY$v~}vÓû AOÎ#Æ$ 0Dã$ D/'% BV%˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLdÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ KLEMNEOPQRUSÓ€_f|œ$3|xa&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òJuly€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€record€does€not€reflect€the€disposition€of€the€claim€againstÏStreck;€but€it€is€clear€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€from€which€this€appealÏis€being€pursued€brought€this€litigation€to€a€close.Ì tÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔPeterbilt€filed€a€third„party€complaint€against€Bryant,€the€title€ownerÏof€the€subject€vehicle.€€With€the€dismissal€of€the€original€complaint,€theÏthird„party€action€was€rendered€moot.Ì äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔWe€note€that€the€Jaspers€do€not€address€the€breach€of€contract€claim€inÏeither€of€the€two€issues€presented€for€our€review;€by€the€same€token,€theyÏhave€not€advanced€any€argument€in€support€of€that€claim€in€their€brief.€€TheÏstatement€of€issues,€as€well€as€the€rest€of€the€brief,€speak€only€in€terms€ofÏthe€Jaspersðð€other€claims,€òòi.e.óó,€conversion,€fraud€and€misrepresentation.€ÏIssues€not€raised€and€argued€in€the€brief€are€deemed€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€13(b),ÏT.R.A.P.;€ò òòòBlair€v.€Badenhopeó óóó,€940€S.W.2d€575,€576„77€(Tenn.App.€1996).Ì êÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€difference€in€last€name€was€not€explained.Ì ùÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔAs€can€be€seen€from€a€review€of€the€contract,€there€are€none.Ì ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔThe€fact€that€the€contract€does€not€provide€for€the€return€of€the€truckÏto€Bryant€at€the€end€of€the€term,€but€instead€contemplates€the€transfer€ofÏtitle€to€the€Jaspers€upon€full€payment,€indicates€that€it€is€not€a€true€lease.€Ïò òòòIdó óóó.Ì OÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔIn€light€of€this€holding,€it€is€obvious€that€we€do€not€agree€withÏPeterbiltððs€argument€that€this€appeal€is€frivolous€under€T.C.A.€ðð€27„1„122.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: 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€ÌÚXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßR€02/A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLE̛̜ÌÌBRUCE€and€CRYSTAL€JASPER,à à€€€)€C/A€NO.€œ03A01›„9711„CV„00521Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àœPlaintiffs€and€Appellants,›€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌœDON€STRECK,à àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àDefendant,à àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìandà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€KNOX€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌPETERBILT›€OF€KNOXVILLE,€œINC.,à à€€€)›Ìà àà àà àà à€€€œà àà à€€€)›Ìà àœDefendant,›à à€œà à›€€œà à€€€)›Ìà àœThird„Party€Plaintiff,€and€€)›€Ìœà àAppellee,›à àà àà àà à€€€)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìœv.à 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€€€)ÌJESS€BRYANT,à àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HONORABLE€HAROLD€WIMBERLY,Ìà àThird„Party€Defendant.à à€€€)€JUDGEÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantsà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleesÌÌGARY€BLACKBURNà àà àà àà àà àKEITH€McCORDÌJAY€C.€BALLARDà àà àà àà àà àMcCord,€Troutman€&€IrwinÌBlackburn,€Slobey,€Freeman€&à àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌ€Happell,€P.C.ÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ ÔÔ€  ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€,ÔÔ€,XÔÌÌAFFIRMED›€IN€PARTÌREVERSED€IN€PARTÌREMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÑ  ÑÓÓà àà àThis€case€arises€out€of€œa€transaction€involving€theÏoriginal€plaintiffs,€Bruce€Jasper€and€his€wife,€Crystal€JasperÏ(collectively€ð ðthe€Jaspersðð),€and€the€defendant€Peterbilt€ofÏKnoxville,€Inc.€(ð ðPeterbiltðð),€regarding€a€1994€Peterbilt€tractorÏtitled€in€the€name€of€Mrs.€Jasperððs€father,€the€third„partyÏdefendant€Jess€Bryant€(ð ðBryantðð).€€The€Jaspers€claimed€an€interestÏin€the€subject€vehicle.€€They€sued€Peterbilt€and€its€formerÏemployee,€Don€Streck€(ð ðStreckðð),× ƒ3 ××  ×€claiming€that€the€defendants€wereÏguilty€of€breach€of€contract,€conversion,€fraud,€and€negligentÏmisrepresentation,€in€securing€the€transfer€of€the€truck€toÏPeterbilt.€€At€the€close€of€the€Jaspersðð€proof€before€a€jury,€theÏtrial€court€held€that€the€Jaspers€had€ð ðno€claimðð€againstÍPeterbilt,€because€the€vehicle€in€question€had€not€been€titled€toÏeither€of€the€Jaspers.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€directed€aÏverdict€in€Peterbiltððs€favor,× ƒ4 ××  ×€and€the€Jaspers€appealed,€presentingÏthe€following€two€issues:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Do€the€Jaspers,€who€had€an€ownershipÏinterest€in€the€1994€truck€according€toÏTennessee,€Georgia€and€Ohio€laws,€haveÏcapacity€and€standing€to€maintain€an€actionÏfor€conversion€and€fraud?ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Do€the€Jaspers,€regardless€of€any€interestÏin€the€1994€truck,€have€capacity€and€standingÏto€maintain€an€action€for€fraud?× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌÓÓÌÌà@ àI.€€òòStandard€of€ReviewóóÌÌà àà àWe€review€a€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€directed€verdictÏunder€well„established€rules:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àIn€ruling€on€the€motion,€the€court€must€takeÏthe€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidenceÏin€favor€of€the€non„moving€party.€€In€otherÏwords,€the€court€must€remove€any€conflict€inÏthe€evidence€by€construing€it€in€the€lightÏmost€favorable€to€the€non„movant€andÏdiscarding€all€countervailing€evidence.€€TheÏcourt€may€grant€the€motion€only€if,€afterÏassessing€the€evidence€according€to€theÏforegoing€standards,€it€determines€thatÏreasonable€minds€could€not€differ€as€to€theÏconclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€Ïòòò òSauls€v.€Evansóóó ó,€635€S.W.2d€377€(Tenn.€1982);Ïò òòòHolmes€v.€Wilsonóóó ó,€551€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.Ï1977).€€If€there€is€any€doubt€as€to€the€properÏconclusions€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€theÏmotion€must€be€denied.€€ò òòòCrosslin€v.€Alsupóóó ó,Ï594€S.W.2d€379€(Tenn.€1980).ÌÌÓÓÌòòò òEaton€v.€McLainóóó ó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994);€òòsee€alsoÏò òWilliams€v.€Brownó óóó,€860€S.W.2d€854,€857€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà@ àII.€€òòFactsóóÌÌà àà àConstrued€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€Jaspers,€theÏrelevant€facts€are€these.€€The€Jaspers,€who€are€Ohio€residents,Ïhave€been€in€the€trucking€business€since€1989.€€In€1993,€a€1994ÏPeterbilt€semi„tractor€unit€(ð ðthe€1994€truckðð)€was€purchased€inÏBryantððs€name€from€Nalley€Motors€in€Atlanta.€€According€to€theÏJaspers,€they€made€the€down€payment€on€the€1994€truck,€but€theÍpurchase€was€made€in€Bryantððs€name€in€order€to€obtain€financing.€ÏAfter€Bryant€and€the€Jaspers€returned€to€Ohio€with€the€truck,ÏBryant€obtained€a€certificate€of€title€from€the€State€of€Ohio€inÏhis€name€only.€€On€August€17,€1993,€Bryant€and€the€JaspersÏexecuted€an€agreement€that€provides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àI,€Jess€Bryant,€hereby€lease€to€purchase€oneÏ1994€Peterbilt€semi€tractor€trailer€unit€VIN#Ïtractor€1XP5DB9X4RN339557€and€trailer€VIN#Ï[number€omitted€in€document]€to€Bruce€N.ÏJasper€and€Crystal€A.€Jasper;€All€due€andÏearned€monies€for€above€described€vehicle(s)Ïare€sole€responsibility€of€the€Jasperððs€[sic]Ïincluding;€Monthly€payments€of€M.E.T.€duesÏicluding€[sic]€insurance,€cargo,€andÏliability,€fuel€taxes,€IRP€dues€„„€State€andÏFederal€taxes,€all€operating€expenses€(i.e.Ïtolls,€fuel€etc.)€and€repair€bills€includingÏroutine€equipment€maintenance,€also€inclusiveÏof€monthly€rental€charge€payable€to€JessÏBryant€of€$2000€until€extent€of€48€paymentsÏare€made€for€clear€title€to€the€Jaspers.€€TheÏ15%€down€payment€to€be€paid€back€as€follows;Ï$8000.€to€T&G€Enterprises,€Wilmington,€N.C.Ï$5000.€to€Jess€Bryant,€394„B€Seroco€ave.,ÏNewark,€Oh.ÌÌà àà8 àÌÌÓÓPursuant€to€the€terms€of€this€agreement,€the€Jaspers€assumed€theÏspecified€payments€and€expenses€and€began€using€the€1994€truck€inÏtheir€business.ÌÌà àà àIn€July,€1994,€the€Jaspers€stopped€at€PeterbiltððsÏlocation€in€Knoxville€to€see€Bryant,€who€was€there€in€connectionÏwith€repairs€to€another€truck.€€They€found€Bryant€talking€withÏStreck,€a€sales€representative€of€Peterbilt.€€Streck€proposed€toÏthe€Jaspers€a€trade€of€the€1994€truck€for€a€newer€model,Ïexplaining€that€they€could€actually€lower€their€monthly€paymentsÏfrom€approximately€$2,500€to€$2,100.€€A€representative€of€Paccar,Ïa€truck€financing€company,€who€was€present€at€the€time,€indicatedÏthat€such€a€deal€would€be€ð ðno€problem,ðð€so€long€as€Bryant€co„signed€the€note.€€After€consulting€with€Peterbiltððs€financeÏmanager,€Streck€informed€the€Jaspers€that€ð ðeverything€is€go.ððÌÌà àà àAlthough€initially€skeptical,€the€Jaspers€ultimatelyÏagreed€to€the€deal.€€They€testified€that€they€then€signed€aÏð ðpurchase€order,ðð€prepared€by€Streck,€which€set€forth€the€detailsÏof€the€trade€of€the€1994€truck€for€the€newer€model.€€AlthoughÏrequested€to€do€so,€Peterbilt€failed€to€produce€this€document€atÏtrial.€€It€did€produce€a€document€entitled€ð ðOffer€to€Purchase,ððÏbut€this€document€reflects€that€the€new€truck€was€to€be€purchasedÏin€the€name€of€Bryantððs€son€„„€and€Mrs.€Jasperððs€brother€„„€JamesÏH.€Brown.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€The€Jaspers€contend€that€the€original€purchase€order,Íwhich€did€not€list€Brown€as€a€purchaser,€reflected€the€trueÏagreement€between€the€parties,€and€that€the€document€produced€byÏPeterbilt€was€altered€and/or€contained€a€forgery€of€BryantððsÏsignature.€€Bryant€and€Mr.€Jasper€also€testified€that€BryantÏsigned€a€release€to€enable€the€Jaspers€to€purchase€the€new€truck.ÌÌà àà àIn€August,€1994,€Streck€called€and€informed€Mr.€JasperÏthat€the€new€truck€had€arrived€and€that€he€should€bring€the€1994Ïtruck€down€from€Ohio€to€complete€the€transaction.€€According€toÏMr.€Jasper,€Streck€stated:€ð ð[D]onððt€worry€about€a€thing.€€Itððs€allÏcovered.€€Financingððs€all€approved,€itððs€been€approved.€€YouÏcouldnððt€back€out€now€if€you€wanted.ðð€€The€Jaspers€drove€the€1994Ïtruck€down€to€Knoxville€on€a€Friday,€but€upon€arriving€atÏPeterbilt,€they€were€informed€that€the€new€truck€was€not€readyÏyet.€€Anticipating€that€they€would€soon€be€taking€delivery€of€theÏnew€truck,€the€Jaspers€turned€over€possession€of€the€1994€truck€toÏStreck,€along€with€a€Power€of€Attorney€and€Bill€of€Sale€that€hadÏbeen€faxed€to€Ohio€by€Peterbilt€and€there€signed€in€blank€byÏBryant.€€At€Streckððs€suggestion,€Mrs.€Jasper€also€wrote€two€checksÏto€the€lender,€Paccar,€in€the€aggregate€amount€of€about€$3,600.ÌÌà àà àPlanning€to€return€the€following€Monday€to€pick€up€theirÏnew€truck,€the€Jaspers€drove€back€to€Ohio.€€On€Monday€morning,Ïhowever,€Streck€called€to€inform€them€that€there€was€a€problemÏwith€the€financing€and€that€Paccar€wanted€ð ðaccelerated€paymentsððÏof€$3,500€per€month€for€the€first€two€years€of€the€deal,€insteadÏof€the€$2,100€per€month€originally€promised€by€Streck.€€AfterÏfirst€insisting€on€the€original€deal,€the€Jaspers€then€offered€toÏpay€$3000€per€month.€€Streck€indicated€that€he€would€make€thatÏproposal€to€Paccar;€shortly€thereafter,€he€called€back€and€statedÏthat€the€lender€had€decided€not€to€finance€the€deal€at€all.€€HeÏalso€informed€the€Jaspers€that€the€1994€truck€had€already€beenÏsold€and€was€ð ðlong€gone.ððÌÌà àà àThe€Jaspers€subsequently€pursued€other€means€ofÏfinancing€the€purchase€of€the€new€truck€but€were€ultimatelyÏunsuccessful.€€Without€a€truck,€they€were€unable€to€continue€theirÏbusiness.€€In€November,€1995,€the€Jaspers€filed€this€action,Ïalleging€that€Peterbilt€and€Streck€were€guilty€of€a€breach€of€theÏcontract€to€purchase€the€new€truck,€conversion€of€the€1994€truck,Ïfraud,€and€negligent€misrepresentation.ÌÌà àà àThe€case€proceeded€to€trial€before€a€jury.€€TheÏdefendants€sought€to€portray€the€facts€in€a€much€different€light,Ïdepicting€the€transaction€as€a€simple€sale€of€the€1994€truck€fromÏBryant,€its€title€owner,€to€Peterbilt.€€Among€other€things,ÏPeterbilt€contended€that€due€to€poor€health€and€financialÏdifficulties,€Bryant€had€authorized€Peterbilt€to€sell€his€truckingÏequipment,€including€the€1994€truck;€that€the€buyer€of€the€newÏtruck€was€to€be€Mrs.€Jasperððs€brother,€James€Brown,€but€thatÏPaccar€had€rejected€the€proposed€deal;€and€that€because€theÏfinancing€had€never€been€approved,€it,€Peterbilt,€had€neverÏaccepted€or€signed€the€proposal.€€Peterbilt€pointed€to€the€factÏthat€it€had€paid€a€fair€price€for€the€1994€truck,€and€alsoÏintroduced€an€October€11,€1994,€letter,€signed€by€Bryant,Ïratifying€the€sale€and€stating€that€the€Jaspers€were€not€partiesÏto€the€transaction.€€Bryant€and€the€Jaspers€claimed€that€BryantððsÏsignature€on€this€letter€had€been€forged,€or€that€Bryant€had€notÏunderstood€what€he€was€signing.ÌÌà àà àAs€stated€earlier,€the€trial€court€directed€a€verdict€inÏfavor€of€Peterbilt€following€the€close€of€the€Jaspersðð€proof,Ïconcluding€that€the€Jaspers€ð ðhave€no€claim€against€the€defendant.ððÌÌà@ àIII.€€òòAnalysisóóÌÌà àà àThe€precise€basis€for€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€is€notÏclear;€however,€it€apparently€involves€a€question€of€standing,€asÏopposed€to€one€of€capacity,€real€party€in€interest,€or€joinder.€ÏòòSee€óóRules€17.01,€17.02,€and€19.01,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€GenerallyÏspeaking,€a€determination€of€whether€a€party€has€standing€to€sueÏdepends€upon€whether€that€party€has€a€personal€stake€in€theÏoutcome€of€the€litigation€sufficient€to€warrant€the€exercise€ofÏthe€courtððs€power€on€its€behalf.€€òòò òBrowning„Ferris€Indus.€v.ÏCity€of€Oak€Ridgeóóó ó,€644€S.W.2d€400,€402€(Tenn.App.€1982).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€instant€case,€the€doubt€regarding€the€JaspersððÏstanding€revolves€around€the€fact€that€the€1994€truck€in€questionÏwas€titled€to€Bryant,€and€not€to€either€of€the€Jaspers.€€Thus,€theÏthreshold€question€is€whether€the€Jaspers€had€a€legally„cognizableÏinterest€in€the€1994€truck€sufficient€to€provide€a€foundation€forÏthis€action.€€However,€we€must€first€resolve€a€question€notÏspecifically€addressed€by€the€trial€court,€òòi.e.óó,€which€stateððs€lawÏapplies€to€the€analysis€of€the€August€17,€1993,€contract?€ÏTennessee€follows€the€traditional€rule€of€òòlex€loci€contractusóó;Íthus,€absent€any€enforceable€choice„of„law€provisions,× ƒ7 ××  ×€questionsÏinvolving€the€construction€of€a€contract€are€governed€by€the€lawÏof€the€state€where€the€contract€was€made.€€òòSeeóó€òòò òOhio€Cas.€Ins.ÏCo.€v.€Travelers€Indemnity€Co.ó óóó,€493€S.W.2d€465,€467€(Tenn.Ï1973);òòò ò€Solomon€v.€FloWarr€Management,€Inc.óóó ó,€777€S.W.2d€701,Ï704„05€(Tenn.App.€1989).€€In€the€instant€case,€Mrs.€JasperÏtestified€that€the€contract€was€executed€in€Ohio.€€Therefore,€ourÏconstruction€of€the€contract€is€controlled€by€Ohio€law.ÌÌà àà àPeterbilt€agrees€that€Ohio€law€applies€and€specificallyÏargues€that€Ohio€Rev.€Code€Ann€ðð€4505.04€precludes€the€JaspersÏfrom€asserting€any€interest€in€the€1994€truck.€€That€sectionÏprovides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à(A)€No€person€acquiring€a€motor€vehicle€fromÏits€owner€whether€the€owner€is€a€manufacturer,Ïimporter,€dealer,€or€any€other€person,€shallÏacquire€any€right,€title,€claim,€or€interestÏin€or€to€the€motor€vehicle€until€such€personÏhas€had€issued€to€him€a€certificate€of€titleÏto€the€motor€vehicle,€or€delivered€to€him€aÏmanufacturerððs€or€importerððs€certificate€forÏit;€and€no€waiver€or€estoppel€operates€inÏfavor€of€such€person€against€a€person€havingÏpossession€of€the€certificate€of€title€to,€orÏmanufacturerððs€or€importerððs€certificate€for,Íthe€motor€vehicle,€for€a€valuable€consideration.ÌÌà àà8 à(B)€Subject€to€division€(C)€of€this€sectionÏ[which€is€not€applicable€to€this€action],€noÏcourt€shall€recognize€the€right,€title,€claim,Ïor€interest€of€any€person€in€or€to€any€motorÏvehicle€sold€or€disposed€of€or€mortgaged€orÏencumbered,€unless€evidenced:ÌÌà àà à(1)€By€a€certificate€of€title,....ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌÌÌÓÓAccording€to€Peterbilt,€this€statute€compels€a€finding€that€theÏJaspers€lack€standing€to€assert€an€interest€in€the€1994€truck.ÌÌà àà àA€review€of€Ohio€appellate€cases€applying€ðð€4505.04Ïreveals€that€it€is€limited€in€scope.€€The€Ohio€Supreme€Court€hasÏheld€that€ðð€4505.04€is€ð ðirrelevant€to€ownership€issues€exceptÏthose€regarding€importation€of€vehicles,€rights€betweenÏlienholders,€rights€of€bona€fide€purchasers€and€instrumentsÏevidencing€title€and€ownership.ðð€€ò òòòCalderone€v.€Jimððs€BodyÏShopóóó ó,€599€N.E.2d€848,€851€(Ohio€App.€1991)(citing€ò òòòSmith€v.ÏNationwide€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€524€N.E.€2d€507,€509€(Ohio€1988));Ïòòsee€also€ò òHoegler€v.€Hamperó óóó,€607€N.E.2d€89,€91€(Ohio€App.€1992).€ÏAs€explained€by€the€Ohio€Supreme€Court,ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à[t]he€purpose€of€[ðð€4505.04]€is€to€prevent€theÏimportation€of€stolen€motor€vehicles,€toÏprotect€Ohio€bona„fide€purchasers€againstÏthieves€and€wrongdoers,€and€to€create€anÏinstrument€evidencing€title€to,€and€ownershipÏof,€motor€vehicles.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌà àà8 à[ðð]€4505.04€was€intended€to€apply€toÏlitigation€where€the€parties€were€rivalÏclaimants€to€title,€òòi.e.óó,€ownership€of€theÏautomobile;€to€contests€between€the€allegedÏowner€and€lien€claimants;€to€litigationÏbetween€the€owner€holding€the€validÏcertificate€of€title€and€one€holding€a€stolen,Ïforged€or€otherwise€invalidly€issuedÏcertificate€of€title;€and€to€similarÏsituations.ÌÌÌÌÓÓò òòòHughes€v.€Al€Green,€Inc.óóó ó,€418€N.E.2d€1355,€1358€(Ohio€1981)Ï(citations€omitted).€€Thus,€it€is€well„established€that€theÏstatuteððs€ð ðproof€of€title€requirements...€apply€only€in€casesÏwhere€there€are€competing€claims€to€a€motor€vehicle.ðð€€ò òòòCalderoneóóó ó,Ï599€N.E.2d€at€851;€ò òòòHoegleróóó ó,€607€N.E.2d€at€90.€€Significantly,€itÏalso€has€been€held€that€the€statute€ð ðwas€not€adopted€to€clarifyÏcontractual€rights€and€duties.ðð€€ò òòòHughesóóó ó,€418€N.E.2d€at€1358.ÌÌà àà àThis€case€does€not€involve€competing€claims€to€ownershipÏof€the€1994€truck€„„€this€is€not€a€lawsuit€between€Bryant€and€theÏJaspers;€instead,€it€involves€a€claim€of€conversion,€fraud€andÍmisrepresentation€surrounding€the€transfer€of€the€1994€truck€toÏPeterbilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòò òCalderoneóóó ó,€599€N.E.2d€at€851,€and€ò òòòHoegleróóó ó,€607ÏN.E.2d€at€90.€€The€Jaspers€simply€seek€to€recover€for€theÏdeprivation€of€their€interest€in€the€vehicle€and€other€damages.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€clear€that€the€statute€in€question,€and€the€casesÏthat€have€applied€it,€do€not€preclude€one€who€is€not€the€holder€ofÏthe€certificate€of€title€from€asserting€a€claim€based€upon€someÏlegally„cognizable€interest€in€the€vehicle.€€In€fact,€several€OhioÏdecisions€have€restricted€application€of€the€statute€whileÏacknowledging€the€existence€of€other€non„title€interests€in€aÏmotor€vehicle.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€ò òGibson€v.€Dan€Phillips€RepairÏServ.ó óóó,€1998€WL€32587€(Ohio€App.,€January€30,€1998)(plaintiff,Ïwhose€ex„husband€was€still€title€owner€of€van,€nevertheless€hadÏinterest€in€the€vehicle€sufficient€to€give€her€standing€to€sue€forÏunauthorized€repairs€thereto);òòò ò€Simmons€v.€DimitrouleasÏWallcovering,€Inc.óóó ó,€1995€WL€19136€(Ohio€App.,€January€18,Ï1995)(upholding€recovery€based€on€theory€of€unjust€enrichment€forÏimprovements€and€payments€to€seller€of€truck€who€repossessedÏvehicle,€because€there€were€no€competing€claims€for€ownership);Ïò òòòPlum€v.€Gelateria€Umbertos,€Inc.óóó ó,€1987€WL€27797€(Ohio€App.,ÏDecember€8,€1987)(recognizing€a€leasehold€interest€in€a€truck€asÍdistinct€from€a€ð ðtitle€or€ownershipðð€interest,€and€rejecting€theÏargument€that€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€forÏdefendant,€on€plaintiffððs€claim€for€conversion€of€that€interest,Ïwas€predicated€on€ðð€4505.04);€ò òòòGraham€Leasing€Corp.€v.€BarrÏTruckingó óóó,€1981€WL€3436€(Ohio€App.,€August€27,€1981)(under€leaseÏof€truck,€ð ðit€is€clear€that€the€right€of€possession€and€use€of€theÏvehicle€is€transferred€to€the€lessee€or€customer,€thus€an€incidentÏof€ownership€is€transferred.ðð).€€Furthermore,€in€a€decisionÏinvolving€an€action€to€establish€a€resulting€trust€in€a€truck,€theÏOhio€Court€of€Appeals€said€the€following:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àWas€it€the€intention€of€the€Legislature,€whenÏit€enacted€the€certificate€of€title€law,€toÏremove€from€the€law€of€trusts€that€species€ofÏpersonal€property€known€as€motor€vehicles,€soÏthat€under€no€circumstances€could€the€legalÏtitle,€as€evidenced€by€a€certificate€of€title,Ïbe€in€one€person€and€the€beneficial€interestÏremain€in€another?€€We€do€not€believe€that€anyÏsuch€thought€was€in€the€legislative€mind€whenÏit€enacted€[the€predecessor€to€ðð€4505.04].ÓÓÌÌòòò òDouglas€v.€Hubbardó óóó,€107€N.E.2d€884,€886€(Ohio€App.€1951).ÌÌà àà àGiven€the€foregoing,€we€find€that€Ohio€Rev.€Code€Ann.Ìðð€4505.04€does€not€present€a€legal€bar€to€the€Jaspersðð€claims,Ïeven€though€the€certificate€of€title€to€the€1994€truck€remained€inÏBryantððs€name.ÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€our€attention€to€the€contract€between€BryantÏand€the€Jaspers€for€the€purpose€of€ascertaining€the€JaspersððÏinterest€in€the€1994€truck€under€Ohio€law.€€First€and€foremost,€weÏmust€interpret€the€contract€so€as€to€effectuate€the€intent€of€theÏparties.€€ò òòòPharmacia€Hepar,€Inc.€v.€City€of€Franklinó óóó,€676ÏN.E.2d€587,€592€(Ohio€App.€1996);€òòò òForstner€v.€Forstneró óóó,€588ÏN.E.2d€285,€288€(Ohio€App.€1990).€€We€initially€look€to€theÏlanguage€of€the€contract.€€òòò òPharmacia€Hepar,€Inc.óóó ó,€676€N.E.2d€atÏ592.€€While€the€contract€contains€the€language,€ð ðlease€toÏpurchaseðð€„„€signifying€a€lease€of€the€vehicle€„„€the€totality€ofÏthe€language€of€the€contract,€as€illuminated€by€the€testimony,Ïindicates€otherwise.€€òòCfóó.€òòò òState€ex€rel.€Celebrezze€v.€Tele„Communications,€Inc.óóó ó,€601€N.E.2d€234,€239„41€(Ohio€Ct.€Cl.Ï1990).× ƒ8 ××  ×€€We€find€and€hold€that€the€substance€of€the€agreementÏbetween€Bryant€and€the€Jaspers€is€that€of€a€contract€to€transferÍtitle€upon€the€satisfaction€of€certain€conditions€„„€a€transactionÏakin€to€a€conditional€sale.€€òòSee€ò òRockwell€v.€Thomasóóó ó,€189€N.E.2dÏ168,€170€(Ohio€App.€1962)€(ð ð[t]he€prime€essential€element€andÏdistinguishing€feature€of€a€contract€of€conditional€sale€is€theÏreservation€of€title€in€the€seller€until€the€performance€of€someÏcondition€or€the€happening€of€some€contingency,€usually€the€fullÏpayment€of€the€purchase€price.ðð);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòò òState€ex€rel.ÏCelebrezze,óóó ó€601€N.E.2d€at€239„41,€and€ò òòòBellish€v.€C.I.T.€Corp.óóó ó,Ï50€N.E.2d€147,€150€(Ohio€1943).ÌÌà àà àThe€contract,€which€was€obviously€drafted€by€a€layÏperson,€is€ambiguous,€and€hence€the€trial€court€was€correct€inÏpermitting€the€introduction€of€parol€evidence€to€explain€itsÏterms.€€òòSee€ò òPharmacia€Hepar,€Inc.ó óóó,€676€N.E.2d€at€592;Ïò òòòForstneró óóó,€588€N.E.2d€at€288;€ò òòòBellishó óóó,€50€N.E.2d€at€150.€€ThisÏtestimony€indicates€that€the€parties€to€the€contract€intended€thatÏthe€Jaspers€would€have€exclusive€use€and€possession€of,€and€anÏequitable€ownership€interest€in,€the€1994€truck.€€Pursuant€to€thisÏinterest,€the€Jaspers€took€possession€of€the€vehicle€and€commencedÏpayment€of€the€expenses€set€forth€in€the€contract.€€When€all€ofÏthe€conditions€of€the€contract€had€been€satisfied,€the€JaspersÏwere€to€then€receive€full€title€to€the€vehicle.€€Until€then,€theÍJaspers€had€a€legally„cognizable€interest,€including€the€right€toÏexclusive€possession.€€If€the€jury€finds€that€they€were€tortiouslyÏdeprived€of€that€interest,€it€will€be€the€duty€of€that€body€toÏdetermine€the€value€of€that€interest€as€shown€by€the€proof€so€thatÏcompensatory€damages€can€be€awarded.ÌÌà àà àWe€find€that€the€August€17,€1993,€contract€conferredÏupon€the€Jaspers€a€legally„cognizable€interest€in€the€1994€truck,Ïand€that€the€Jaspers€therefore€have€standing€to€bring€this€action.ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€had€different€theories€and€sharplyÏcontrasting€evidence€as€to€the€facts€surrounding€the€transfer€ofÏthe€1994€truck€to€Peterbilt.€€It€is€the€prerogative€of€the€jury€toÏdetermine€which€version€is€true.€€Taking€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€Jaspers,€òòò òEaton€v.€McLainó óóó,Ï891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994),€we€find€that€a€jury€reasonablyÏcould€conclude€that€Peterbilt€tortiously€deprived€the€Jaspers€ofÏtheir€interest€in€the€1994€truck.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€directing€a€verdict€in€favor€of€Peterbilt.× ƒ9 ××  ×ÌÌà@ àIV.€€òòConclusionóóÌÌ›à àà àIt€œresults›€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏdismissing€the€Jaspersðð€conversion,€fraud€and€misrepresentationÏclaims€is€reversed.€€œThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€as€to€theÏbreach€of€contract›€theory€œis›€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€œfurther€proceedings,€not€inconsistent€withÏthis€opinion.›€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€to€the€appellee.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌ_________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.