ÿWPCÃ* …# VU Ha %© 0ð¯w@Ÿ 4ß ó 04 0D6 z {¿‚ {¿A {ð {ðð 0Jà 0T* 0^~ 0hÜ 0rD 0|¶ 0†2 0¸ 1uH 0d½U6!B)WDC€ AMà D3U*C¤m 0@ BQnP}v~Í!vÓK# AO)Æm) 0D3* D/w* B¦*˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÒ<à09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularX(ÈN$¡¡Ô€XÜeXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY,3Ø' LetterY,3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letter3Ø' LetterTÑÔ€R@$RXXÜeÔÓÄÓ EEÓ€Ó€f|œ$urier 3|x*(ä(3Nn$¤¤Ý ƒN!ÝÔ€XˆZXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY3Ø' Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€Rˆ_RXXˆZÔÓÄÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(—;d$¡¡Ô€X|XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY(3Ø' LetterY(3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letter3Ø' LetterTÑ(—;d$¡¡Ô‡X|XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY(3Ø' LetterY(3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letter3Ø' LetterTÑ(ÈU²$¡¡Ô‡XÜeXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY,3Ø' LetterY,3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letter3Ø' LetterTÑÔ‡-é[-XXÜeÔÓ©öÓ(ÈU²$¡¡Ô€XÜeXXXÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑTRY,3Ø' LetterY,3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letter3Ø' LetterTÑÔ€-é[-XXÜeÔÓ©öÓ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ....'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial šÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÓÄÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òAugust€19,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÓÄÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòWe€further€note€that€there€are€no€authorities€whatever€cited€in€theÏappellant's€brief€in€support€of€any€argument€advanced€by€the€appellant.€€WeÏcall€counsel's€attention€to€Rule€27(a)(7),€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure.óóÌ FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÓÄÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòA€"Motion€to€Re„Consider€Judgment€and€Damages"€was€filed€by€theÏdefendant€on€€January€7,€1998.€€The€motion€also€asks€that€the€court€awardÏattorney€fees.€€There€is€no€order€specifically€addressing€the€motion.€ÏAccordingly,€in€the€absence€of€a€record€to€the€contrary,€we€will€presume€thatÏthe€court's€final€judgment€entered€on€January€27,€1998,€was€also€intended€toÏdispose€of€this€motion.óóÌÌòòà àIn€both€the€motion€to€reconsider€and€in€the€brief€filed€in€this€court,Ïthe€appellant€asserts€that€damages€were€stipulated.€€The€record€does€notÏsupport€this€contention.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€&ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÓÄÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ ä ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔT€ÔÔT€ ÔÑ7€ˆZXXdÈdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€),(A1-j|` Ö `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€€€à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌSTEVE€W.€KILLIAN,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àKNOX€CHANCERYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€C.€A.€NO.€03A01„9803„CH„00106Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellee€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€SHARON€BELLÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àCHANCELLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌTABOR€CONSTRUCTION,€INC.,€€€€€€€)à àMODIFIED,€AFFIRMED€ASÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€MODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDÌ€€€€€€€€€€Defendant„Appellant€€€)ÌÌÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€R.€HENLEY,€œLufkin›,€Henley€&€Conner,€Knoxville,€for€Appel…lant.ÌÌÌC.€PAUL€HARRISON,€Long€œRagsdale›€&€Waters,€Knoxville,€for€Appellee.ÌÌÇÓˆ Óà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThis€is€an€action€for€breach€of€contract.€€The€plaintiffÏalleged€in€his€complaint€that€he€had€contracted€with€the€defendantÏwhereby€the€defendant€was€to€construct€a€house€for€him.€€DuringÏthe€course€of€the€construction,€he€removed€the€defendant€from€theÏjob,€allegedly€for€breach€of€contract,€and€hired€a€substitute€toÏcomplete€the€project.€€The€defendant€denied€that€it€had€breachedÏthe€contract,€but€on€the€contrary,€filed€a€counterclaim€seekingÏdamages€from€the€plaintiff€œalleging€that€the€plaintiff€was€theÏparty€guilty€of€breaching€the€contract.›€€After€a€bench€trial,€theÏcourt€took€the€matter€under€advisement€and€subsequently€issued€aÏmemorandum€opinion€wherein€the€original€complaint€was€dismissed.€ÏThe€plaintiff€was€found€to€have€breached€the€contract€with€theÏdefendant,€however,€the€court€found€that€no€damages€had€beenÏproved€and€gave€no€judgment€for€damages€on€the€counterclaim.€€TheÍdefendant€appealed.€€œWe€modify€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andÏaffirm€as€modified.›ÌÌà àThe€appellant€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€conƒsideration:ÌÌÓÄÓà8 àà0 àà à1.à àThe€trial€court€erred€by€ruling€that€plaintiffÏbreach‚ed€the€contract€and€then€not€awarding€damagesÏfor€defendant„appellant.ÌÌà8 àà0 àà à2.à àThe€trial€court€erred€in€not€awarding€attorney€feesÏto€defendant€according€to€the€provisions€of€theÏœcontract.Ì›ÌÌÓˆ Óà àThe€appellee€also€œasks›€us€to€find€that€this€is€a€frivolousÏappeal€and€to€assess€damages€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€27„1„122.ÌÌœà àOur€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€Unless€the€evidence€otherwise€preponderates€against€theÏfindings,€we€must€affirm,€absent€an€error€of€law.€€See€Rule€13(d),ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€If€the€plaintiff€is€enti…tled€to€a€judgment,€appellate€courts€have€a€duty€to€render€judg…ments€which€the€lower€court€should€have€rendered.€òòSeeóó€òòe.góó.,€òòToomeyÏv.€Atyoeóó,€et€al,€32€S.W.€254€(Tenn.€1895),€and€òòPerry€v.€Carteróó,Ï219€S.W.2d€905€(Tenn.€1949).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Rule€36(a),€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure.Ì›Ìà àWe€should€point€out€that€no€transcript€of€the€evidence€orÏstatement€of€the€evidence€has€been€prepared€and€filed€as€requiredÏby€Rule€24,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€œProcedure.× ƒ/ ××  ×›ÌÌÓÄÓà8 àà àWhere€the€issues€raised€go€to€the€evidence,€thereÏmust€be€a€transcript.€In€the€absence€of€a€transcript€ofÏthe€evidence,€there€is€a€conclusive€presumption€thatÏthere€was€sufficient€evidence€before€the€trial€court€toÏsupport€its€judgment,€and€this€Court€must€thereforeÏaffirm€the€judgment.€ÌÌà8 àòòœCoakley›€v.€Danielsóó,€840€S.W.2d€367,€370€(Tenn.€App.Ï1992).€òòSee€alsoóó€òòWord€v.€Wordóó,€937€S.W.2d€931,€932€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1996);€òòœSherrod›€v.€œWix›óó,€849€S.W.2d€780,€783€(Tenn.ÍApp.€1992);€òòIrvin€v.€City€of€œClarks‚ville›óó,€767€S.W.2dÏ649,€653€(Tenn.€App.€1988).ÌÌÓˆ ÓÌà àIn€the€opinion€issued€by€the€trial€court€it€is€stated:ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÓÄÓà8 àà àDefendant€claims€entitlement€to€one„half€equity€inÏthe€house,€apparently€under€a€theory€that€he€would€notÏhave€reduced€his€price€and€held€his€profit€to€a€minimumÏhad€he€known€plaintiff€would€breach€the€contract€andÏdeprive€defendant€of€future€profits.ÌÌà8 àà àThat,€however,€was€not€the€agreement€of€the€par…ties,€and€is€not€a€measure€of€damage€known€to€the€court.ÌÌà8 àà àLast,€defendant€demands€punitive€damages,€but€thereÏis€no€showing€of€the€requisite€degree€of€malice€toÏsustain€such€an€award.ÌÌà àFINDINGS:ÌÌà8 àà àFrom€the€above,€it€is€respectfully€found€thatÏneither€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment.€€Costs€areÏtaxed€one„half€to€each€party,€with€each€to€bear€theirÏown€discretionary€costs.ÌÌÓˆ ÓÌà àJudgment€was€duly€entered€on€January€27,€1998.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€€Obviously,Ïall€issues€raised€by€the€appellant€including€compensatory€damagesÏfor€breach€of€contract€and€the€propriety€œand€amount€of›€an€award€ofÏattorney's€fees,€require€evidence€for€resolution.€€(òòSeeóó€òòCustomÏBuilt€Homes€v.€G.€S.€œHinson›,€Co.óó,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€89€for€anÏexcellent€discussion,€with€authorities,€of€damages€as€they€relateÏto€breach€of€contract.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€Medical€Corp.€v.€œHohenwald›ÏBankóó,€703€S.W.2d€133€(Tenn.€1986)€and€òòConners€v.€Connersóó,€594ÏS.W.2d€672€(Tenn.€1980)€for€a€discussion€relating€to€attorney'sÏfees.)€€This€court€has€held€time€and€time€again€that€"[œi]n›€theÏabsence€of€a€transcript€or€statement€of€the€evidence,€we€mustÏconclusively€presume€that€every€fact€admissible€under€theÏpleadings€was€found€or€should€have€been€found€favorably€to€theÍappellee."€òòLeek€v.€Powellóó,€884€S.W.2d€118,€121€(Tenn.€App.€1994);ÏòòLyon€v.€Lyonóó,€765€S.W.2d€759,€763€(Tenn.€App.€1988);€and€a€multi…tude€of€other€authorities.€€Applying€this€rule,€we€must€resolveÏall€issues€relative€to€compensatory€damages€and€attorney's€feesÏadverse€to€the€appellant.ÌÌà àWhile€the€issue€of€nominal€damages€is€not€specifically€men…tioned€either€in€the€trial€court€or€in€this€court,€we€are€of€theÏopinion€that€the€appellant's€issue€relating€to€damages€œis›€suffi…ciently€broad€to€encompass€nominal€damages.ÌÌÓÄÓà8 àà àWhere€there€is€a€breach€of€contract,€but€no€actualÏdamages€have€been€proven,€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€toÏnominal€damages.€òòSeeóó€òòBradford€&€Carson€v.€MontgomeryÏFurniture€Co.óó,€115€Tenn.€610,€92€S.W.€1104€(1906);ÏòòMorristown€Lincoln„Mercury,€Inc.€v.€Roy€N.€œLotspeich›ÏPublishing€Co.óó,€42€Tenn.€App.€92,€298€S.W.2d€788€(1956).ÏThe€purpose€of€nominal€damages€is€to€recognize€a€legalÏright.€òòSeeóó€òòœWomack›€v.€Wardóó,€186€S.W.2d€619€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1944).€Thus,€in€òòSeat€&€Robinson€v.€œMoreland›óó€,€26ÏTenn.€(7€Hum.)€575€(1847),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏstruck€down€the€lower€court's€charge€to€the€jury€toÏenter€a€verdict€for€the€defendant€if€the€plaintiffÏsuffered€no€damages.€In€reversing€and€remanding€for€aÏnew€trial,€the€court€stated,€"Where€no€actual€loss€hasÏbeen€sustained€by€the€violation€of€a€contract,€theÍdamages€are€nominal,€but€this€entitles€the€plaintiff€toÏa€judgment€for€his€costs."€œòòId.óó›€at€576.ÌÌòòStewart€v.€Petersonóó,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€784€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€Ï(No€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€wasÏmade.)ÌÌÓˆ ÓÌà àWhere€the€plaintiff€recovers€only€nominal€damages€for€theÏviolation€of€a€contract,€he€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€for€costs.ÏòòSeat€v.€œMoreland›óó,€26€Tenn.€574€(1847);€òòœWadsworth›€v.€Western€UnionóóÏòòTel.€Co.óó,€86€Tenn.€695,€8€S.W.€574,€6€Am.€St.€R.€864€(1888).€òòSeeóóÏòòGist€v.€Webbóó,€41€Tenn.€518€(1860).ÌÌà àUnder€the€above€authorities,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏappellant€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€for€nominal€damages€and€costs.€ÏWe€modify€the€judgment,€pursuant€to€Rule€36,€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure,€and€award€judgment€to€the€appellant€for€nominalÏdamages€in€the€amount€of€$100.00€and€costs€in€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àIn€view€of€our€disposition€of€the€damage€issue,€this€is€notÏan€appropriate€case€for€the€assessment€of€damages€for€a€frivolousÏappeal.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€as€modified.€€CostsÏin€both€the€trial€court€and€this€court€are€assessed€to€the€appel…lee€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€aÏjudgment€consistent€with€this€œopinion.›ÌÓÄÓÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à€ à€______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ___________________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌ___________________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€JudgeÌÇÑ  ÑÑ7€