ÿWPCð kš,QfÔ ]–­qV†1* €Â12¬k®ƒ 1cËÆËh»ÑU„5¨Ç{6kªü/ñ`Bø(€nkr¬ÆHyÝ ©{w¨þà_7F·‚0Ô‰1ÊKt¹¯ÂhÁkÏE‚’¾×ÿØÉxþ ”á6æÂû¾w¥ †ª„ü½‹ˆºëT'GŽœ¬‘OÓÈŠý3üµ÷]¨iÕ·Ûe=³žy¿i÷Ùå¸â¦{BЊd³–òÞÊÎå¸Â®Ü/)Ý8× v­ùÑÜ¡%¼P“bßïÈ?Øšø®…›{áiÒà•,Ä|¦/0Œ5ñ¦³-Wì<÷œöââdþÊ…yêS¦åYqìBn˜GG4…TýßCIØpè™»‹™ÿŠGa±Ov÷½w“çÁ+ß§ÜïéS8 š ‹\] æËŽ@ºš¾¿äú…È î»qG¡è'˜‰ày 0*Í»„_ûw(‘þb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 0c‘ Æô ƺ Æ€ ÆF 0D NPR 1‡ZEá 1‡ã 1‡jUNñ 1u? 72´ 1‡æ 72mFŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸbåååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååå 0ëíííí BØØ 0¤õ D3™ D-Ì 0Kùù ASDÆ— 0¤] 0D A«E˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»\‰•) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularõ}|)ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList4I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. <Ý ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XáX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€jury€had€asked€if€they€were€to€give€equal€weight€to€oral€and€written€agreements€andÐ ° Ðwhether€a€written€document€would€supercede€an€oral€agreement?Ð œì Ð- ù-(|G2$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Qý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XáX»»Ô d(|3”$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Qý»»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€Qý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Qý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Qý»»»ÔÑ8€áXXdì»»d8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@££ìà€€€€€October€12,€2000€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡XáX»¼QýÔÌò òÔ#†¼Qý»XXá§#ÔÓ  ÓNEXT€òòóóGENERATION,€INC.,€v.€WAL„MART,€INC.,€d/b/a€SAMððSÐ Ò" ÐWHOLESALE€CLUBòòóóÔ‡XáX»¼QýÔó óÐ æ 6 ÐÓíÓÌà@  ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ æ 6 Ðà@a a ìàNo.€96C„1068€€€€Hon.€Thomas€W.€Brothers,€Circuit€JudgeˆÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` A߈Ð –æ  ÐÌà@K K ìàNo.€M2000„00114„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€21,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌIn€this€contract€dispute,€the€jury€awarded€damages€to€Wal„Mart,€Inc.,€and€the€Trial€Court€concurred.€Ð P  ÐNext€Generation,€Inc.,€appealed€raising€issues€as€to€the€admissibility€of€evidence€and€the€TrialÐ <Œ ÐCourtððs€instructions€to€the€jury.€€We€affirm.Ð (x ÐÌÔ#†¼Qý»XXá`#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼QýÔò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#†¼Qý»àXá$#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼QýÔ,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Ô‡XáXàXáÔÔ#†¼Qý»àXáé#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼QýÔCharles€D.€Susano,Ð Ø( ÐJr.óó,€J.,€Ô#†XáXXXáA#ÔÔ#†¼Qý»XXáƒ#ÔòòÔ‡XáX.¼QýÔóóandòò€D.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,Ô#†¼Qý»àXá#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼QýÔ€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌÌWilliam€L.€Brown€and€James€T.€Williams,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant,€Next€Generation,Ð ˆØ ÐInc.Ð tÄ ÐÌThomas€Ô_ÔPinckneyÔ_Ô,€Andy€Ô_ÔRowlettÔ_Ô,€and€Keith€Quinn,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee,€Wal„MartÐ L œ ÐStores,€Inc.,€d/b/a€Samððs€Wholesale€Club.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Qý»XXáœ#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼QýԈРè$8 $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Qý»XXᦠ#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼QýÔÔ‡XáXXXáÔÌà  àà ` àIn€this€breach€of€contract€action€involving€an€agreement€to€purchase€2000€units€of€aÐ ¬'ü"' Ðsporting€clay€machine€between€Next€Generation,€Inc.,€(ð ðNextðð),€and€Wal„Mart,€Inc.€d/b/a/€SamððsÐ ˜(è#( ÐWholesale€Club€(ð ðSamððsðð),€a€jury€awarded€Samððs€$1,084,000.00€and€Next€has€appealed.€€Next€raisedÐ „)Ô$) Ðthe€following€issues:€€Ð p*À%* ÐÌÓ€ (uh83ÓÝ"‚ 3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚ 3£p ÝÔ2uhÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€Trial€Court€committed€error€regarding€the€parol€evidence€rule?݃ 3£p ½ ÝŒÐH,˜',¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÐ 4-„(-ý  ÐÔ_ÔÝ"‚ 3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚ 3£ÔÝÔ2uhÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€Trial€Courtððs€supplemental€instructions€following€the€juryððsÐ ° Ðquestions€were€erroneous?݃ 3£Ô!ÝŒÐœì¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚ 3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚ 3£BÝÔ2uhÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€direct€a€verdict€for€Next€regardingÐ tÄ ÐSamððs€claim€that€Next€breached€an€agreement€to€market€the€product?݃ 3£BÝŒÐ`°¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚ 3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚ 3£ÝÝÔ2uhÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€direct€a€verdict€for€Next€regardingÐ 8 ˆ ÐSamððs€claim€that€Next€breached€the€implied€warranty€of€merchantability?݃ 3£Ý*ÝŒÐ$ t¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚ 3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚ 3£}ÝÔ2uhÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€failing€to€direct€a€verdict€for€Next€regardingÐ ü L  ÐSamððs€claim€that€Next€agreed€to€reimburse€Samððs€for€units€that€did€not€sell?݃ 3£}ÊÝŒÐè 8 ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚ 3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚ 3£%ÝÔ2uhÔÚ  Ú6Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€jury€charge€of€the€Trial€Court€violated€the€statute€of€frauds?݃ 3£%rÝŒÐÀ ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚ 3£"ÝÝ  Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àÝ‚ 3£aÝÔ2uhÔÚ  Ú7Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#àÝ  ÝWhether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€granting€Samððs€a€directed€verdict€on€NextððsÐ ˜è  Ðclaim€of€promissory€fraud€and€punitive€damages?݃ 3£a®ÝŒÐ„Ô ¸ (#¸ (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àà ` àWe€review€judgments€based€upon€a€jury€verdict€and€approved€by€the€Trial€Judge€byÐ \¬ Ðdetermining€whether€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€Ð H˜ ÐIn€determining€whether€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict,€we€must€take€the€strongestÐ 4„ Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€verdict,€assume€the€truth€of€all€evidence€that€supportsÐ  p Ðthe€verdict,€and€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€to€sustain€the€verdict,€discarding€all€countervailingÐ  \ Ðevidence.€€òòBarnes€v.€Goodyear€Tire€and€Rubber€Co.,óó€2000€WL€688864€(Tenn.€2000).€€If€the€recordÐ øH Ðcontains€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict,€the€judgment€must€be€affirmed.€Ð ä4 ÐòòCrabtree€Masonry€Co.€v.€C€&€R€Constr.,€Inc.,óó€575€S.W.2d€4,€5€(Tenn.€1978).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€agreement€between€the€parties€was€entered€in€Arkansas,€but€Tennessee€andÐ ¨ø ÐArkansas€have€the€same€version€of€the€parol€evidence€rule,€which€basically€states€that€a€writingÐ ”ä Ðintended€by€the€parties€as€the€final€expression€of€their€agreement€may€not€be€contradicted€byÐ €Ð Ðevidence€of€a€prior€or€contemporaneous€oral€agreement,€but€may€be€explained€or€supplemented€byÐ l¼ Ðconsistent€additional€terms.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð47„2„202€and€Ark.€Code€Ann.€ðð4„2„202.€€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àSimilar€to€Arkansas,€Tennessee€law€provides€that€a€contract€which€is€unambiguousÐ 0"€  Ðon€its€face€is€considered€final€and€may€not€be€contradicted€with€parol€evidence.€€òòCity€of€Memphis€forÐ #l! ÐUse€and€Benefit€of€State€v.€Moore,óó€818€S.W.2d€13€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Likewise,€where€theÐ $X" Ðwritten€document€contains€a€clause€stating€that€no€other€agreements€exist€other€than€the€onesÐ ô$D # Ðcontained€therein,€it€is€final€and€cannot€be€varied€by€parol€evidence.€€òòTidwell€v.€Morgan€BuildingÐ à%0!$ ÐSystems,€Inc.,óó€840€S.W.2d€373€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992.)Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€written€documents€upon€which€Next€relies€are€a€ð ðcommitmentðð€letterÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwritten€by€Dean€Sanders,€president€of€Samððs,€which€states€that€Samððs€will€purchase€2000€units€fromÐ )à$( ÐNext€before€the€end€of€fiscal€year€1994,€and€the€vendor€agreement€signed€by€Next.€€It€is€clear€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðonly€from€the€testimony,€but€also€from€the€documents,€that€neither€was€intended€by€the€parties€to€beÐ h+¸&* Ða€ð ðfinal€expression€of€their€agreementðð€as€contemplated€by€the€parol€evidence€rule.€€The€commitmentÐ ° Ðletter,€as€testified€to€by€Sanders€and€by€Ray€Murski,€the€sales€representative€for€Next,€was€writtenÐ œì Ðto€enable€Next€to€obtain€financing€for€production,€and€was€clearly€not€intended€to€be€a€finalÐ ˆØ Ðexpression€of€the€agreement,€as€it€is€only€a€one„line€document€signed€by€one€party.€The€commitmentÐ tÄ Ðletter€contains€no€terms€regarding€payment,€form€of€delivery,€dates€of€delivery,€and€numerous€otherÐ `° Ðessential€items.Ð L œ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€vendor€agreement€was€a€document€that€Samððs€required€its€vendors€to€completeÐ $ t Ðand€have€on€file,€but€it€does€not€speak€to€such€significant€terms€as€price,€quantity,€delivery,€payment,Ð  ` Ðetc.€€It€is€also€deficient€so€far€as€detailing€the€actual€substance€of€the€partiesðð€deal,€and€clearly€wasÐ ü L  Ðnot€intended€as€the€final€expression.€€Both€the€commitment€letter€and€the€vendor€agreement€are€eitherÐ è 8  Ðambiguous€or€silent€as€to€many€essential€terms,€and€neither€contains€an€integration€clause.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€establishes€that€these€two€documents€were€not€the€final€expression€of€the€parties€agreement.Ð À  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àSince€the€writings€were€not€final€expressions,€and€the€oral€terms€regarding€marketingÐ ˜è  Ðwere€not€contradictory€of€the€writings,€there€is€no€parol€evidence€issue.€€There€was€material€evidenceÐ „Ô  Ðregarding€the€oral€terms€of€the€partiesðð€agreement€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€that€Next€hadÐ pÀ Ðobligations€under€the€contract€which€were€breached,€and€thus€the€juryððs€finding€in€this€regard€isÐ \¬ Ðsupported€by€material€evidence.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àNext€argues€that€the€Trial€Courtððs€supplemental€instructions€to€the€jury€following€theÐ  p Ðjuryððs€submission€of€questions€were€erroneous,€and€that€Nextððs€proposed€instruction€should€haveÐ  \ Ðbeen€given.€€The€Trial€Courtððs€instructions€basically€stated€that€a€contract€can€be€oral€or€written€orÐ øH Ðboth,€and€that€the€existence€of€a€contract€must€be€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ThisÐ ä4 Ðinstruction€is€a€correct€statement€of€the€law,€and€is€applicable€to€the€facts€and€issues€in€the€case€andÐ Ð  Ðis€therefore€not€erroneous.€€òòLadd€by€Ladd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.,€Ltd.óó,€939€S.W.2d€83€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¼  Ð1996).€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àNext€requested€an€instruction€which€stated€that€oral€terms€inconsistent€with€theÐ €Ð Ðwritten€document€should€not€be€considered.€€Since€none€of€the€oral€terms€described€by€the€partiesÐ l¼ Ðwere€inconsistent€with€written€documents,€the€Trial€Court€correctly€refused€the€instruction.€€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àLikewise,€Nextððs€proposed€instruction€that€any€change€to€the€written€document€wouldÐ 0"€  Ðhave€to€be€in€writing€was€not€appropriate.€€Written€contracts€may€be€supplemented€by€oral€termsÐ #l! Ðwhen€the€written€document€is€not€a€final€expression€of€the€agreement,€and€when€the€oral€terms€areÐ $X" Ðnot€inconsistent.€€The€instruction€was€not€supported€by€the€law€or€the€evidence€and€was€properlyÐ ô$D # Ðdenied.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àNext€argues€that€it€was€entitled€to€a€directed€verdict.€€This€issue€hinges€on€theÐ ¸'#& Ðquestion€of€whether€there€was€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€conclusion€that€Next€agreed€toÐ ° Ðundertake€responsibilities€with€regard€to€the€marketing€of€the€product.€€Dean€Sanders€and€RayÐ œì ÐMurski€testified€unequivocally€that€LeAnna€and€Moore€for€the€plaintiff€Next€had€agreed€from€theÐ ˆØ Ðbeginning€to€run€ads,€do€demonstrations,€go€to€shows€and€shoots,€etc.,€in€order€to€create€a€demandÐ tÄ Ðfor€the€product.€€LeAnna€and€Moore€also€testified€that€they€agreed€to€do€these€things,€but€that€theirÐ `° Ðagreement€came€after€the€units€had€been€shipped€and€were€not€selling.€€Thus,€the€evidence€isÐ L œ Ðundisputed€that€the€agreement€existed,€the€only€dispute€regarding€the€agreement€was€when€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðagreement€was€made€and€the€extent€to€which€they€committed€themselves.€€There€is€also€evidence€thatÐ $ t ÐNext€had€not€fulfilled€its€agreement€with€regard€to€marketing.€€Murski,€as€an€agent€for€Next,Ð  ` Ðidentified€many€things€which€Moore€and€LeAnna€had€committed€themselves€to€do€that€had€not€beenÐ ü L  Ðcompleted.€€Moore€and€LeAnna€admitted€that€they€had€not€done€all€of€the€things€which€wereÐ è 8  Ðdescribed€in€Murskiððs€communications€with€Samððs.€€Sanders€also€testified€that€Next€had€failed€inÐ Ô$  Ðits€marketing€responsibilities.€€There€was€evidence€in€the€record€that€an€agreement€to€promoteÐ À  Ðexisted,€and€that€it€had€not€been€satisfied€by€Next.€€Accordingly,€a€directed€verdict€was€inappropriate.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€the€denial€of€a€directed€verdict€regarding€Nextððs€breach€of€warranty€ofÐ „Ô  Ðmerchantability,€Samððs€made€the€claim€in€its€pleadings,€but€admits€that€the€issue€is€now€mootÐ pÀ Ðbecause€counsel€for€Samððs€did€not€raise€the€issue€in€closing€arguments.€€Next€explains€that€they€haveÐ \¬ Ðpreserved€the€issue€out€of€an€abundance€of€caution,€and€we€conclude€there€is€no€need€to€address€theÐ H˜ Ðissue.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àNext€also€complains€about€the€refusal€to€direct€a€verdict€on€the€issue€of€breach€ofÐ  \ Ðagreement€to€reimburse.€€While€there€is€no€express€agreement€in€the€record€that€Next€agreed€toÐ øH Ðreimburse€Samððs€for€the€units€picked€up,€the€alleged€agreement€to€reimburse€was€not€the€only€basisÐ ä4 Ðfor€awarding€damages€to€Samððs.€€There€was€ample€evidence€in€the€record€to€establish€that€Next€hadÐ Ð  Ðpromised€to€undertake€certain€marketing€responsibilities€as€a€part€of€this€agreement,€and€that€NextÐ ¼  Ðbreached€this€portion€of€the€contract.€€Samððs€had€ordered€and€paid€for€nearly€200€units€that€it€couldÐ ¨ø Ðnot€sell,€and€those€units€were€ultimately€returned€to€Next.€€Samððs€expended€over€a€million€dollarsÐ ”ä Ðfor€these€units€that€did€not€sell€and€Next€ultimately€resold€the€units€after€regaining€possession.€€TheÐ €Ð Ðjury€could€reasonably€conclude€Samððs€was€entitled€to€a€refund€of€the€money€paid€for€those€units€asÐ l¼ Ðcompensatory€damages,€to€compensate€Samððs€for€Nextððs€breach.€€òòSeeóó€ò òó óòòWilson€v.€Dealyóóò ò,€ó ó434€S.W.2dÐ X ¨ Ð835€(Tenn.€1968);€òòNashland€Associates€v.€Shumateóó,€730€S.W.2d€332€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987).ò ò€Ð H!˜ Ðó óMoreover,€ð ðthe€amount€of€damages€is€primarily€a€jury€question,€and€a€verdict€approved€by€the€trialÐ 8"ˆ  Ðcourt€is€entitled€to€great€weight€in€this€court.ððò ò€€ó óòòAct-O-Lane€Gas€Service€Co.€v.€Hallóó,€248€S.W.2d€398Ð $#t! Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1951).ò ò€ó óÐ $d" ÐÌà  àà ` àNext€argues€that€the€Trial€Courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury€were€erroneous€because€€(1)Ð ð%@!$ Ðthey€allowed€the€jury€to€consider€evidence€of€an€alleged€oral€contract€to€reimburse€in€violation€of€theÐ Ü&,"% Ðstatute€of€frauds,€and€(2)€they€erroneously€stated€that€the€burden€of€proof€for€such€a€contract€was€aÐ È'#& Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€rather€than€the€clear€and€convincing€standard€required€under€theÐ ´($' ÐArkansas€statute€of€frauds.€€Next€places€great€emphasis€on€this€alleged€oral€agreement€to€reimburse.€Ð  )ð$( ÐIt€was€not€significant€to€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€The€juryððs€verdict€was€supported€by€materialÐ Œ*Ü%) Ðevidence€that€Next€had€an€obligation€to€market€the€product€and€failed€to€do€so,€and€the€verdict€mayÐ x+È&* Ðbe€upheld€on€this€basis€alone.€€òòBenson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€Elec.€Co„op.óó,€868€S.W.2d€630€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ° ÐApp.€1993).€€Error,€if€any€in€this€regard,€was€harmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àNext€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€granting€Samððs€a€directed€verdict€on€NextððsÐ tÄ Ðclaims€of€promissory€fraud€and€punitive€damages.€We€conclude€the€Trial€Court€properly€directedÐ `° Ðverdicts€on€these€issues.€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€reasonable€minds€could€not€differ€as€to€the€lackÐ L œ Ðof€fraud,€because€there€was€no€proof€of€present€intent€to€willfully€injure€through€false€promise,€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€required€by€Arkansas€law.€€€Next€admits€that€this€is€a€proper€statement€of€Arkansas€law,€but€arguesÐ $ t Ðthat€Samððs€committed€to€purchase€2000€units€when€they€only€intended€to€purchase€200,€and€that€suchÐ  ` Ðconstitutes€promissory€fraud.€€€The€testimony€from€which€this€can€be€deduced,€however,€is€that€ofÐ ü L  ÐRay€Murski,€who€was€an€agent€of€Next.€€Murski€testified€that€Samððs€would€try€200€units€or€so€andÐ è 8  Ðsee€how€they€sold,€and€that€if€they€sold€well€Samððs€would€purchase€2000€or€more.€€Sanders€testifiedÐ Ô$  Ðthat€he€fully€intended€to€purchase€2000€units€or€more,€but€that€the€units€did€not€sell€because€NextÐ À  Ðbreached€its€promise€to€promote€the€product.€Since€Murski€was€agent€for€Next,€his€knowledge€isÐ ¬ü  Ðimputed€to€Next€and€would€have€been€known€by€Next€and€could€not€form€a€basis€for€promissoryÐ ˜è  Ðfraud.€€òòSeeóó€òòCity€Nat.€Bank€of€Fort€Smith,€Ark.€v.€Vanderboomóó,€290€F.€Supp.€592€(W.D.€Ark.€1968).Ð „Ô  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àLikewise,€in€the€absence€of€fraud,€there€is€no€basis€for€punitive€damages,€and€thus€theÐ \¬ ÐTrial€Court€properly€directed€a€verdict€on€this€issue€as€well.€€òòSeeóó€òòRay€Dodge,€Inc.,€v.€Mooreóó,€479Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€518€(Ark.€1972);€òòHodges€v.€S.C.Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896€(Tenn.€1992).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€Next€argues€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€granting€Samððs€a€directed€verdictÐ  \ Ðon€its€claim€for€prejudgment€interest.€€Utilizing€the€proper€standard€of€review,€the€Trial€CourtÐ øH Ðproperly€granted€a€directed€verdict€on€this€issue.€€Prejudgment€interest€is€allowed€to€compensate€forÐ ä4 Ðdamages€wrongfully€withheld€from€the€time€of€loss€until€judgment,€and€is€not€allowed€where€the€lossÐ Ð  Ðis€not€ð ðimmediately€ascertainable€with€reasonable€certainty.ðð€€òòTB€of€Blythesville,€Inc.€v.€Little€RockÐ ¼  ÐSign€&€Emblem,€Inc.óó,€946€S.W.2d€930€(Ark.€1997);€òòBrandt€v.€Bib€Enterprises,€Ltd.óó,€986€S.W.2d€586€Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€jury€verdict€was€supported€by€ample€material€evidence€and€weÐ l¼ Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand€with€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€NextÐ X ¨ ÐGeneration,€Inc.Ð D!” ÐÌÔ#†XáXXXá$ #ÔÔ#†¼Qý»XXá #ÔÔ‡XáX»¼QýÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð à%0!$ Ðóó