ÿWPCþ }g4ªÉ_OŽärY±[ õNîg¶¹ÈÁX®¥¹ë4 óб.¶ÃÑFÁ„æUèüǶkÿ´ÑÓìŸú³CÅVÎïUó`l fÉpÒbè*h ùÈ=šÆSÓ Ä¹Õ@Ø™6‰ý!·õåz“«Ó€$7ƒíЇ‡4±àx;í¹Ž;A°Ó´¢­ûOï÷ nEz»j{Mˆ6Oäºg7°âX 9˜ù· {…‰bU½Šhˆ=ÄæÿXtð–WÁéÞJiÚ¾æ<9y™¤Ó^#v:!lªtåˆC°0¹Þ Ey[ÕùÛúÊCÏ-±ÒpçÀ½?ˆxÙ0‡ge k)W›ÊcÂcî™#S¢xþ4%Ð¥f«aÜè4à° Ê/k"wB½âèMû-Ué×mäæ$w‹ÿ-Ä-g<!KŸ>_&ÑùZ–÷Ãa0wE"&O³çž²n;ùwK$Bë5ð߇òÒ{,Œ&uA¬¶1¿i“V"î8`œà‹ýŒpÉwb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ U>Ð  Æ ÆÜ Æ¢ Æh #Á. NïïïEññññññññññññññññññññññññbóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó 0ëûûûû Bææ 0¤ D3§ D-Ú 0K ASRÆ¥ 0¤k 0D A«S»ar+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularXq+ ¡bk òª3|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ &Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0- ù-(|G2ì $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ ¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬íò»»Ô d(|3ÁJ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ ¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÁJ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ ¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ 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€@IXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îD ¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ ¥»îîD #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€6,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X@IX»¼ ¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ ¥»XX@Ió#ÔG.€KLINE€PRESTON,€IVòòóó€v.€GARRETT€REALTY€SERVICE,€INC.Ô‡X@IX»¼ ¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00C„1325€€€€€€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02350„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€27,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X@IXXX@IÔThis€matter€comes€to€us€on€appeal€from€summary€judgment€granted€due€to€Tennesseeððs€lack€ofÐ xÈ  Ðpersonal€jurisdiction€over€Defendant.€€Plaintiff€attempted€to€rent€a€condominium€in€Florida€and€suedÐ d´ ÐDefendant€in€Tennessee€for€breach€of€contract€after€Defendant€discovered€a€mistake€in€the€quotedÐ P  Ðprice€and€refused€to€rent€the€condo€to€Plaintiff€for€the€quoted€price.€€The€circuit€court€determined€thatÐ <Œ ÐTennessee€had€no€personal€jurisdiction€over€Defendant€and€dismissed€the€case.€€We€affirm.Ô#†X@IXX X@IÀ#ÔÔ#†¼ ¥»XX@Is#ÔÔ‡X@IX»¼ ¥ÔÐ (x ÐÓ´ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ ¥»àX@I\#ÔÔ‡X@IX.¼ ¥ÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó€andÐ Ø( ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrellóó,€J.,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌLawrence€D.€Wilson,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€G.€Kline€Preston,€IV.Ð œì ÐÌMichael€Castellarin,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Garrett€Realty€Service,€Inc.Ð tÄ ÐÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ ¥»XX@I<#ÔÔ‡X@IX»¼ ¥ÔÐ L œ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ ¥»XX@I. #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X@IX»¼ ¥ÔÔ‡ X@IXXX@IÔà  àPlaintiff/Appellant,€G.€Kline€Preston,€IV€(hereinafter€ððPrestonðð)€went€to€Ô_ÔGarrettÔ_Ô€RealtyÐ $"t! ÐServices€(hereinafter€ððÔ_ÔGarrettÔ_Ôðð)€in€Ô_ÔSeagroveÔ_Ô€Beach,€Florida€in€July€of€1999€while€vacationing€inÐ #`" ÐFlorida€to€discuss€renting€a€condo€for€the€next€year.€€This€was€the€first€contact€Preston€had€withÐ ü#L# ÐÔ_ÔGarrettÔ_Ô€Realty.€€The€parties€discussed€the€rental€of€a€larger€condo€than€the€one€Preston€was€currentlyÐ è$8 $ Ðrenting€from€another€agency.€€They€discussed€a€two€week€rental€for€the€following€year,€but€did€notÐ Ô%$!% Ðagree€on€the€exact€price€since€the€price€list€for€the€following€year€was€not€yet€determined.€€However,Ð À&"& Ðthe€parties€did€discuss€the€rate€for€which€the€condo€was€currently€renting€and€compared€that€rate€toÐ ¬'ü"' Ðwhat€he€was€paying€at€the€time.€€Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àPreston€testified€that€the€condominium€he€rented€in€Florida€during€the€summer€of€1999€wasÐ p*À%* Ða€two€bedroom€for€which€he€paid€$1800€per€week,€or€$3600€for€two€his€two€week€rental.€€He€alsoÐ \+¬&+ Ðtestified€that€the€two€bedroom€condominium€was€not€as€nice€at€the€three€bedroom€he€was€trying€toÐ H,˜', Ðrent€from€Garrett.€€The€parties€discussed€the€fact€that€the€three€bedroom€condo€he€wished€to€rent€forÐ 4-„(-ý Ðthe€summer€of€2000€was€nicer€and€would€be€more€expensive.€€An€employee€of€Garrett€testified€thatÐ ° Ðthe€summer€rate€for€the€condominium€in€1999€was€$2280€per€week€and€that€this€rate€was€discussedÐ œì Ðwith€Preston€during€his€initial€contact€with€Garrett€in€Florida.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€January€of€the€following€year,€Preston€received€a€letter€from€Ô_ÔGarrettÔ_Ô€Realty€providing€aÐ `° Ðprice€of€$2370€for€theòò€two€weekóó€rental€period€requested;€however,€this€letter€contained€an€error€andÐ L œ Ðactually€only€provided€the€price€for€a€one€week€rental.€€On€approximately€February€4,€2000,Ð 8 ˆ ÐPrestonððs€wife€called€to€book€the€rental€using€her€husband€credit/debit€card€as€payment.€€A€fewÐ $ t Ðweeks€after€that,€Garrett€contacted€Preston€to€let€them€know€there€had€been€a€mistake€in€the€quotedÐ  ` Ðprice€and€to€see€if€they€still€wanted€the€rental.€€Preston€refused€to€accept€the€rental€at€the€correctedÐ ü L  Ðprice.€€His€credit€card€had€not€been€charged€and€was€never€charged.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àPreston€sued€in€Davidson€County€General€Sessions€Court€for€breach€of€contract€and€violationÐ À  Ðof€Tennesseeððs€consumer€protection€laws€and€obtained€a€judgment€against€Garrett€in€the€amount€ofÐ ¬ü  Ð$2617.70.€€The€case€was€appealed€to€Davidson€County€Circuit€Court,€which€determined€thatÐ ˜è  ÐTennessee€did€not€have€òòin€personamóó€jurisdiction€over€Garrett€and€granted€their€Motion€for€SummaryÐ „Ô  ÐJudgment.€€Preston€now€appeals€the€circuit€courtððs€decision.ò òÐ pÀ ÐÌó óà  àThe€decisive€issue€presented€for€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€finding€thatÐ H˜ ÐTennessee€did€not€have€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€defendant.€€We€find€that€Tennessee€has€noÐ 4„ Ðpersonal€jurisdiction€over€Garrett€in€this€matter€and€affirm€the€trial€court.Ð  p ÐÌò òó óà  àPreston€argued€that€Garrett€failed€to€set€forth€sufficient€facts€to€establish€lack€of€minimumÐ øH Ðcontacts€with€the€State€of€Tennessee€such€that€there€was€no€jurisdiction€over€them€and€that€GarrettÐ ä4 Ðdid€not€provide€facts€to€show€there€was€no€contact€with€Plaintiff€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Also,Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔGarrettÔ_Ô€did€not€provide€sufficient€facts€to€show€insufficient€minimum€contacts€with€the€state€toÐ ¼  Ðconfer€general€jurisdiction.€€Preston€pointed€to€the€fact€that€Garrettððs€offer€to€lease€was€received€byÐ ¨ø ÐPlaintiff€in€Tennessee,€that€the€offer€was€accepted€by€phone€in€Tennessee,€and€that€payment€wasÐ ”ä Ðtendered€in€Tennessee.€€Preston€further€€argued€that€Ô_ÔGarrettÔ_Ô€admitted€doing€business€in€TennesseeÐ €Ð Ðby€advertising€in€four€major€newspapers,€thus,€purposely€availing€itself€of€the€jurisdiction€ofÐ l¼ ÐTennessee.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àAs€the€inquiry€here€involves€wholly€a€question€of€law,€we€review€the€decision€of€the€circuitÐ 0"€  Ðcourt€òòde€novoóó,€without€any€presumption€of€correctness,€in€determining€whether€the€requirements€ofÐ #l! ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€56€have€been€met.€€òòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Ô_ÔAssocsÔ_Ô.,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3dÐ $X" Ð83,€88€(Tenn.€2000).€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  à[S]ummary€judgment€is€appropriate€where:€(1)€there€is€no€genuine€issue€with€regardÐ Ì&"% Ðto€the€material€facts€relevant€to€the€claim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion;€and€(2)Ð ¸'#& Ðthe€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ )à$( ÐòòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88€(citations€omitted)ò òó ó.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€no€party€has€questioned€the€materialÐ ° Ðfacts.€€The€only€issue€is€whether€the€facts€confer€jurisdiction€on€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€decide€thisÐ œì Ðdispute.Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌà  àPreston€misstates€the€law€and€burden€of€proof€in€this€matter€arguing€that€Garrett€must€showÐ `° Ðlack€of€minimum€contacts.€€However,€it€is€well€settled€law€that€ð ð[t]he€burden€of€establishingÐ L œ Ðjurisdiction€over€the€persons€of€the€defendants€rests€with€the€plaintiff.ðð€€òòInternational€Ô_ÔTechsÔ_Ô.Ð 8 ˆ ÐConsultants,€Inc.€v.€Euroglas€S.A.óó,€107€F.3d€386,€391€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1997).€€Ô_ÔGarrettÔ_Ô,€in€its€Motion€forÐ $ t ÐSummary€Judgment,€showed€that€the€undisputed€facts€presented€by€Preston€did€not€provide€theÐ  ` Ðminimum€contacts€requisite€for€Tennessee€to€have€jurisdiction€in€this€case.€€As€such,€the€motion€wasÐ ü L  Ðproperly€granted.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€basic€test€for€jurisdiction€was€prescribed€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€inÐ À  ÐòòInternational€Shoe€Co.,€v.€Washingtonóó,€326€U.S.€310€(1945)€and€is€based€on€due€processÐ ¬ü  Ðrequirements€of€the€Constitution.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  à[D]ue€process€requires€only€that€in€order€to€subject€a€defendant€to€a€judgment€inÐ pÀ Ðpersonam,€if€he€be€not€present€within€the€territory€of€the€forum,€he€have€certainÐ \¬ Ðminimum€contacts€with€it€such€that€the€maintenance€of€the€suit€does€not€offendÐ H˜ Ðððtraditional€notions€of€fair€play€and€substantial€justice.ðð€€Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌòòInternational€Shoeóó,€326€U.S.€at€316.€€The€court€recognized€two€circumstances€under€which€a€stateÐ  \ Ðcan€have€jurisdiction€over€an€out„of„state€defendant.€€The€first€is€where€a€defendantððs€continuous€andÐ øH Ðsystematic€activities€give€rise€to€the€liabilities€on€which€a€law€suit€is€based.€€òòId.€óóat€317.€€The€secondÐ ä4 Ðis€were€defendantððs€continuous€activities€are€ð ðso€substantial€and€of€such€a€nature€as€to€justify€suitÐ Ð  Ðagainst€it€on€causes€of€action€arising€from€dealings€entirely€distinct€from€those€activities.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€318.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€has€continued€to€use€this€two€tiered€analysis€of€contacts€to€determineÐ ”ä Ðwhether€a€defendantððs€contacts€with€the€forum€state€comport€with€ððtraditional€notions€of€fair€play€andÐ €Ð Ðsubstantial€justice.ððÐ l¼ ÐÌà8  àWhen€a€controversy€is€related€to€or€ððarises€out€ofðð€a€defendantððs€contacts€with€theÐ D!” Ðforum,€the€Court€has€said€that€a€ððrelationship€among€the€defendant,€the€forum,€andÐ 0"€  Ðthe€litigationðð€is€the€essential€foundation€of€in€personam€jurisdiction.€€Even€when€theÐ #l! Ðcause€of€action€does€not€arise€out€of€or€relate€to€the€foreign€corporationððs€activitiesÐ $X" Ðin€the€forum€State,€due€process€is€not€offended€by€a€Stateððs€subjecting€the€corporationÐ ô$D # Ðto€its€in€personam€jurisdiction€when€there€are€sufficient€contacts€between€the€StateÐ à%0!$ Ðand€the€foreign€corporation.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌòòÔ_ÔHelicopterosÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNacionalesÔ_Ô€De€Colombia€v.€Hallóó,€466€U.S.€408,€414€(1984).Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà8  àWhen€a€State€exercises€personal€jurisdiction€over€a€defendant€in€a€suit€not€arising€outÐ ° Ðof€or€related€to€the€defendantððs€contacts€with€the€forum,€the€State€has€been€said€to€beÐ œì Ðexercising€ð ðgeneral€jurisdictionðð€over€the€defendants.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌòòId.€óóat€415€n9.Ð `° ÐÌà  àIn€order€for€a€state€to€have€jurisdiction,€a€defendant€must€have€minimum€contacts€with€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðforum€state,€either€where€a€defendantððs€continuous€and€systematic€activities€give€rise€to€the€liabilitiesÐ $ t Ðsued€on€or€where€a€defendantððs€continuous€activities€are€so€substantial€as€to€justify€jurisdictionÐ  ` Ðunrelated€to€those€activities.€In€this€case,€the€cause€of€€action€did€not€arise€out€of€Defendantððs€conductÐ ü L  Ðin€Tennessee,€and€Defendant€did€not€engage€in€continuous€and€substantial€activities€that€wouldÐ è 8  Ðjustify€general€jurisdiction€for€actions€unrelated€to€those€contacts.€€€€€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€Tennessee€can€exercise€general€jurisdiction€over€a€defendant€we€lookÐ ¬ü  Ðat€all€of€the€defendantððs€contacts€with€the€forum€state.€€€These€contacts€must€be€continuous€corporateÐ ˜è  Ðoperations€within€the€state€that€are€so€substantial€and€of€such€a€nature€that€they€would€justify€a€suitÐ „Ô  Ðagainst€the€defendant€on€a€cause€of€action€arising€from€dealings€entirely€distinct€from€those€activities.€Ð pÀ ÐòòInternational€Shoeóó,€66€U.S.€at€316.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€only€evidence€presented€of€contacts€with€the€State€of€Tennessee€are€advertisements€inÐ 4„ Ðthree€Tennessee€news€papers€and€advertisements€in€òòSouthern€Livingóó€magazine.€€Garrett€also€sentÐ  p ÐPreston€a€flyer€containing€rates€for€its€condominiums€and€the€letter€containing€Garrettððs€incorrectÐ  \ Ðððoffer.ðð€€Garrett€contacted€Preston€by€phone€to€let€them€know€the€quoted€price€was€a€mistake€andÐ øH Ðaccepted€payment€via€phone€from€Tennessee€through€Prestonððs€credit/debit€card.€€It€is€obvious€thatÐ ä4 Ðthese€contacts€are€not€continuous€and€substantial€and€do€not€permit€Tennessee€to€exercise€generalÐ Ð  Ðòòin€personamóó€jurisdiction€over€Defendant.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àHowever,€even€if€Tennessee€does€not€have€general€jurisdiction€over€a€defendant,€it€may€assertÐ ”ä Ðspecific€jurisdiction€over€an€out„of„state€defendant€if€that€defendant€has€ð ðfair€warning€that€aÐ €Ð Ðparticular€activity€may€subject€[them]€to€the€jurisdiction€of€a€foreign€sovereign.ðð€òò€Burger€King€Corp.,Ð l¼ Ðv.€Rudzewiczóó,€471€U.S.€462,€472€(1985),òò€citing€Shaffer€v.€Heitneróó,€433€U.S.€186,€218€(1997)Ð X ¨ Ð(Stevens,€J.,€concurring€in€judgment).€€ð ð[Ô_ÔT]hisÔ_Ô€ððfair€warningðð€requirement€is€satisfied€if€the€defendantÐ D!” Ðhas€ððpurposefully€directedðð€his€activities€at€residents€of€the€forum€and€the€litigation€results€fromÐ 0"€  Ðalleged€injuries€that€ððarise€out€of€or€relate€toðð€those€activities.ððò ò€ó ó€òòBurger€Kingóó,€471€U.S.€at€472Ð #l! Ð(citations€omitted).Ð  $\" ÐÌà8  à[T]he€constitutional€touchstone€remains€whether€the€defendant€purposefullyÐ ä%4!$ Ðestablished€ð ðminimum€contactsðð€in€the€forum€State.€.€.€.€€ð ð[T]he€foreseeability€that€isÐ Ð& "% Ðcritical€to€due€process€analysis€.€.€.€is€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€and€connectionÐ ¼' #& Ðwith€the€forum€State€are€such€that€he€should€reasonably€anticipate€being€haled€intoÐ ¨(ø#' Ðcourt€there.ðð€€In€defining€when€it€is€that€a€potential€defendant€should€ð ðreasonablyÐ ”)ä$( Ðanticipateðð€out„of„state€litigation,€the€Court€frequently€has€drawn€from€the€reasoningÐ €*Ð%) Ðof€òòHanson€v.€Dencklaóó:Ðl+¼&*Ð Ð  Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðThe€unilateral€activity€of€those€who€claim€some€relationship€with€aÐ ° Ðnonresident€defendant€cannot€satisfy€the€requirement€of€contact€withÐ œì Ðthe€forum€State.€€The€application€of€that€rule€will€vary€with€theÐ ˆØ Ðquality€and€nature€of€the€defendantððs€activity,€but€it€is€essential€inÐ tÄ Ðeach€case€that€there€be€some€act€by€which€the€defendant€purposefullyÐ `° Ðavails€itself€of€the€privilege€of€conducting€activities€within€the€forumÐ L œ ÐState,€thus€invoking€the€benefits€and€protections€of€its€laws.ððÐ8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà ` àThis€ð ðpurposeful€availmentðð€requirement€ensures€that€a€defendant€will€not€beÐ  ` Ðhaled€into€a€jurisdiction€solely€as€a€result€of€ð ðrandom,ðð€ð ðfortuitous,ðð€or€ð ðattenuatedððÐ ü L  Ðcontacts€or€of€the€ð ðunilateral€activity€of€another€party€or€third€person.ðð€€JurisdictionÐ è 8  Ðis€proper,€however,€where€the€contacts€proximately€result€from€actions€by€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant€òòhimselfóó€that€create€a€substantial€connectionðð€with€the€forum€State.€€ThusÐ À  Ðwhere€the€defendant€ð ðdeliberatelyðð€has€engaged€in€significant€activities€within€aÐ ¬ü  ÐState,€or€has€created€ð ðcontinuing€obligationsðð€between€himself€and€residents€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðforum,€he€manifestly€has€availed€himself€of€the€privilege€of€conducting€businessÐ „Ô  Ðthere,€and€because€his€activities€are€shielded€by€ð ðthe€benefits€and€protectionsðð€of€theÐ pÀ Ðforumððs€laws€it€is€presumptively€not€unreasonable€to€require€him€to€submit€to€theÐ \¬ Ðburdens€of€litigation€in€that€forum€as€well.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌòòBurger€Kingóó,€471€U.S.€at€òòóó474„76€(citations€omitted).€€The€minor€and€attenuated€contacts€Ô_ÔGarrettÔ_Ô€hadÐ  p Ðwith€Tennessee€during€their€attempt€to€negotiate€an€agreement€with€Preston€certainly€do€not€rise€toÐ  \ Ðthe€level€of€minimum€contacts€that€would€cause€Garrett€to€reasonably€anticipate€being€haled€intoÐ øH Ðcourt€in€Tennessee.€€òòÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àBurger€Kingóó€further€clarifies€the€issues€in€this€case€by€giving€guidance€specifically€directedÐ ¼  Ðat€contract€negotiations.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àIf€the€question€is€whether€an€individualððs€contract€with€an€out„of„state€party€òòaloneóó€canÐ €Ð Ðautomatically€establish€sufficient€minimum€contacts€in€the€other€partyððs€home€forum,Ð l¼ Ðwe€believe€the€answer€clearly€is€that€it€cannot.€.€.€.€€€Instead,€we€have€emphasized€theÐ X ¨ Ðneed€for€a€ð ðhighly€realisticðð€approach€that€recognizes€that€a€ð ðcontractðð€is€ð ðordinarilyÐ D!” Ðbut€an€intermediate€step€serving€to€tie€up€prior€business€negotiations€with€futureÐ 0"€  Ðconsequences€which€themselves€are€the€real€object€of€the€business€transaction.ðð€€ItÐ #l! Ðis€these€factors€„€prior€negotiations€and€contemplated€future€consequences€along€withÐ $X" Ðthe€terms€of€the€contract€and€the€partiesðð€actual€course€of€dealing€„€that€must€beÐ ô$D # Ðevaluated€in€determining€whether€the€defendant€purposefully€established€minimumÐ à%0!$ Ðcontacts€with€the€forum.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.€óóat€478„79.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€alleged€contract€at€issue,€Preston€contacted€Garrett€in€Florida€and€allÐ |*Ì%) Ðdiscussions€regarding€rental€dates€and€price€were€held€in€Florida.€€The€object€of€the€contract€is€inÐ h+¸&* ÐFlorida,€and€performance€of€the€contract€would€occur€in€Florida.€€A€single€letter,€requested€byÐ ° ÐPreston,€providing€a€price€for€rental;€an€advertising€flyer€containing€updated€prices,€sent€to€PrestonÐ œì Ðin€Tennessee€after€his€tour€of€the€property€and€decision€to€rent;€a€phone€call€from€Ô_ÔPreston,Ô_Ô€inÐ ˆØ ÐTennessee,€to€Ô_ÔGarrettÔ_Ô,€in€Florida,€to€reserve€the€desired€property€in€Florida;€and€a€phone€call€fromÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔGarrettÔ_Ô,€in€Florida,€to€Preston,€in€Tennessee,€to€inform€Preston€of€Garrettððs€mistake€are€not€enoughÐ `° Ðto€establish€minimum€contacts€such€that€Garrett€purposefully€availed€itself€of€doing€business€in€theÐ L œ ÐState€of€Tennessee.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€Tennessee€has€no€jurisdiction€over€this€matter.€The€trial€court€properly€grantedÐ  ` ÐDefendantððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€and€is€herein€affirmed.€€All€other€issues€are€pretermittedÐ ü L  Ðby€this€decision€regarding€jurisdiction.Ð è 8  Ðà  àÔ#†X@IXX X@I· #ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE