ÿWPC U¥wx£d¡Ú öÛKŠPï!ôÙàˆ;¿Ë·$ë›ðú@DÖ)7WZñ´‚‚~dü«;Ç©8sf`UÅú–bA’ ( þÇEôD³ZmZ&ÆC‡ Fg¡lä•ÀuêÛÆ-H‡â l[Ý/õËr½Õø8:ŽÁX °G¤Ø©€´ý,ª*Žã¾L›Q$h¶aI¥ïÒD¢…øè™â@Òí–~mHÖ8{_²JÔK­ÓÛiùßÂù­¡ªy˜¶\ie…ã’Þa)¿Fš¾°Òâ¹¾5;%T¢Ê—²Þ‡[ÍpP²þ~ééï¢ì¤²'àbRF-aŸ.Ñ€ÁByF¨ÇïUíUÝùcP¿n3ÐÁ¯”"féF:¸÷é9ùh‹ 4\Ò®ˆ âå<ÚŠå_á#JݤheÂÚrÚsk)–-êÅš¤?iV%r›rd{„’‡²+,Ì8Æó´wfÄå'çœ R›"íþ« xÉ@rˆ!Mì±ß+UwT'4ý¨ªÔ 4‚˜³[ˆ ˆØ´¦IæjjcqƳStó|oüâ`zT6Ué!Lßõcõ¤ˆã!Æ’*–ð+SæåÒŽ¼ØÑù<Î0Œ5/±¿…Õu Þ!“åLJó•Ê*b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNñññEóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóbõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ 0ëýýýý Bèè 0¤ D3© D-Ü 0K   ASTƧ 0¤m 0D A«U˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(tE+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+ ¡bk ¦¤ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù-(|G2è.$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kµ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôø]ò»»Ô d(|3Éb$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kµ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Éb$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kµ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kµ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Kµ»»»ÔÑ8€ÉXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î^ÄKµÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Kµ»îî^Ä #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€5,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÉX»¼KµÔÌò òÔ#†¼Kµ»XXÉö#ÔCHUCK€ROBERTSONòòóó€v.€MELVIN€G.€GEORGE,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XÉX»¼KµÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„1950„III€€€€€€Ellen€Hobbs€Lyle,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02661„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€5,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XÉXXXÉÔThis€lawsuit€arises€out€of€a€real€estate€contract.€€The€plaintiff,€Chuck€Robertson,€a€residential€homeÐ xÈ  Ðbuilder,€contracted€to€purchase€sixteen€(16)€lots€from€the€defendant,€Melvin€George.€€After€theÐ d´ Ðparties€entered€into€the€contract,€the€plaintiff€discovered€that€the€official€flood€plain€designation€hadÐ P  Ðbeen€adjusted€to€include€nine€(9)€of€the€lots€the€plaintiff€contracted€to€purchase€and€filed€suit€on€theÐ <Œ Ðtheories€of€intentional€misrepresentation,€negligent€misrepresentation,€mutual€mistake,€unjustÐ (x Ðenrichment,€and€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€The€defendants€filed€aÐ d Ðcounter„complaint€for€breach€of€contract.€€The€parties€filed€cross„motions€for€summary€judgment.€Ð P ÐThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€plaintiffððs€action€holding€that€the€mistake€was€a€mistake€of€law.€€WeÐ ì< Ðaffirm€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€and€remand.Ô#†XÉXX XÉÊ#ÔÔ#†¼Kµ»XXÉs#ÔÔ‡XÉX»¼KµÔÐ Ø( ÐÓ¾ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Ð ° ÐAffirmed€in€Part,€Reversed€in€Part€and€Remandedó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Kµ»àXÉ #ÔÔ‡XÉX.¼KµÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó€andÐ tÄ ÐòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌRonald€B.€Buchanan,€Hendersonville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Chuck€Robertson.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌLarry€D.€Ashworth€and€Peter€D.€Heil,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Melvin€G.€George€andÐ #`" ÐJeffrey€George.€Ð ü#L# ÐÓ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Kµ»XXÉ6 #ÔÔ‡XÉX»¼KµÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Kµ»XXÉV #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÉX»¼KµÔà  àÔ‡ XÉXXXÉÔThe€defendants€are€father€and€son.€€Ô#†XÉXX XÉë #ÔÔ‡ XÉXXXÉÔThe€defendant€father,€Melvin€George,€purchased€land€inÐ ¬'ü"' Ð1987.€€In€1998,€the€defendants,€Melvin€George€and€his€son,€Jeff€George,€obtained€approval€from€theÐ ˜(è#( ÐMetropolitan€Planning€Commission€and€Davidson€County€to€develop€a€residential€subdivision€onÐ „)Ô$) Ðthe€property,€Covington€Place€Subdivision€(ð ðCovington€Placeðð).€€The€defendant,€Melvin€George,€putÐ p*À%* Ðup€the€money€and€the€defendant,€Jeff€George,€handled€the€development€and€sale€of€the€lots.€€TheÐ \+¬&+ Ðproperty€was€subdivided€into€twenty„three€(23)€lots.€€The€subdivision€plat€was€recorded€on€JanuaryÐ H,˜', Ð7,€1998.Ô#†XÉXX XÉQ #ÔÔ‡ XÉXXXÉÔ€€The€subdivision€plat€in€the€Register€of€Deeds€Office€stated€ð ð[t]he€property€shown€hereonÐ 4-„(-ý Ðis€not€included€in€areas€designated€as€ððspecial€flood€hazardðð€on€the€latest€Flood€Insurance€ProgramÐ ° ÐMap€dated€June€15,€1982.ðð€€The€plat€contained€the€date€on€which€the€engineer€certified€the€accuracyÐ œì Ðof€the€plat€on€September€9,€1997.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€Federal€Emergency€Management€Agency€(ð ðFEMAðð)€amended€the€flood€map€in€FebruaryÐ `° Ð1998€by€raising€the€100„year€flood€plain€by€approximately€two€(2)€feet.€€The€lots€numbered€1,€2,€3,€Ð L œ Ð18,€19,€20,€21,€22,€and€23€were€designated€as€Special€Flood€Hazards€as€a€result€of€the€amendment.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€the€fall€of€1998,€the€plaintiff,€a€residential€home€builder,€contacted€the€defendant,€JeffÐ  ` ÐGeorge,€to€discuss€the€possibility€of€purchasing€lots€in€Covington€Place.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff,€an€experienced€home€builder,€met€the€defendant,€Jeff€George,€at€the€property.€Ð Ô$  ÐJeff€George€showed€the€plaintiff€a€copy€of€the€subdivision€plat€which€indicated€that€none€of€theÐ À  Ðproperty€was€in€the€flood€plain.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€and€his€wife€went€to€the€Davidson€County€Register€of€Deeds€to€verify€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðplat€shown€to€them€by€the€defendant€had€not€been€updated.€€They€also€went€to€the€office€of€theÐ pÀ Ðprofessional€engineer€that€prepared€the€plat€and€obtained€a€copy€of€the€plat.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€parties€entered€into€a€written€contract€titled€ð ðReal€Estate€Purchase€Agreementðð€onÐ 4„ ÐDecember€15,€1998,€wherein€the€plaintiff€agreed€to€purchase€sixteen€(16)€residential€lots€inÐ  p ÐCovington€Place€at€a€price€of€$18,500.00€per€lot.€€The€plaintiff€paid€$10,000.00€earnest€money€uponÐ  \ Ðexecution€of€the€contract.€€One€sixteenth€(1/16)€of€the€earnest€money€was€to€be€credited€to€theÐ øH Ðmoneys€due€upon€closing€of€each€lot.€€The€contract€further€provided€that€ð ð[b]uyer€reserves€right€uponÐ ä4 Ð30€days€notice€to€seller€to€end€agreement€with€seller€retaining€remaining€earnest€money€and€buyerÐ Ð  Ðpaying€seller€next€30€days€interest€when€normally€due.ðð€€The€contract€was€silent€as€to€allocation€ofÐ ¼  Ðrisk€in€case€of€mistake.€€The€plaintiff€purchased€twelve€(12)€lots€before€learning€of€the€flood€plainÐ ¨ø Ðproblem.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€attempted€to€secure€building€permits€for€some€of€the€lots.€€He€was€informed€byÐ l¼ Ðthe€Metropolitan€Government€Codes€Department€that€some€of€the€lots€were€indeed€in€a€flood€plain.€Ð X ¨ ÐThe€two€foot€change€in€the€flood€plain€elevation€affected€nine€(9)€of€the€lots€the€plaintiff€contractedÐ D!” Ðto€purchase.€€The€plaintiff€could€still€build€homes€on€the€lots€if€he€Ô_ÔfillrdÔ_Ô€them€to€bring€them€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðminimum€elevation€above€the€flood€plain.€€The€plaintiff€estimated€that€the€cost€to€bring€the€lots€toÐ #l! Ðthe€proper€elevation€is€between€$2,800.00€and€$4,800.00€per€lot.€€On€March€7,€1999,€the€plaintiff€metÐ $X" Ðwith€the€defendant,€Jeff€George,€and€the€plaintiff€informed€the€defendant€that€he€was€not€going€toÐ ô$D # Ðbuy€the€remaining€four€(4)€lots.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÔ#†XÉXX XÉ5#ÔÔ‡ XÉXXXÉÔà  àThe€plaintiff€filed€a€Complaint€against€the€defendants€asking€the€court€to€rescind€portions€of€Ð ¸'#& Ðthe€real€estate€purchase€agreement€dated€December€15,€1998.€€The€plaintiff€alleged€that€the€defendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrepresented€to€him€that€the€sixteen€(16)€lots€he€contracted€to€purchase€were€ð ðresidential€building€lotsððÐ )à$( Ðand€were€not€in€a€flood€plain.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àOn€January€14,€2000,€the€defendants€filed€an€Answer€denying€the€allegations€and€filed€aÐ ° ÐCounter„Complaint€alleging€that€the€plaintiff€had€breached€the€contract€by€refusing€to€purchase€theÐ œì Ðremaining€lots.€€The€defendants€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€March€9,€2000.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðplaintiff€filed€a€Response€and€Counter€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€April€17,€2000.€€The€cross„Ð tÄ Ðmotions€were€heard€on€May€25,€2000.Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€June€15,€2000,€the€trial€court€filed€a€Memorandum€and€Order€denying€the€plaintiffððsÐ 8 ˆ ÐMotion€for€Summary€Judgment,€dismissing€the€plaintiffððs€claims,€and€holding€that€the€plaintiff€hadÐ $ t Ðbreached€the€contract€with€the€defendants€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€defendantsÐ  ` Ða€judgment€of€$5,147.50€against€the€plaintiff€and€held€that€the€defendants€were€entitled€to€specificÐ ü L  Ðperformance€requiring€the€plaintiff€to€purchase€the€remaining€lots.€€The€memorandum€and€orderÐ è 8  Ðstated:Ð Ô$  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€dismisses€the€plaintiffððs€claim€of€intentional€misrepresentation€onÐ À  Ðthe€grounds€that€the€record€raises€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€to€warrant€a€trialÐ ¬ü  Ðon€the€claim€of€intentional€misrepresentation.€.€.€.Иè Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€plaintiff€suggests€that€the€defendants€made€negligent€misrepresentationsÐ pÀ Ðby€providing€the€plaintiff,€in€December€of€1998,€a€plat€which€showed€that€theÐ \¬ Ðsubdivision€was€not€subject€to€the€flood€plain€when,€in€fact,€lots€in€the€subdivisionÐ H˜ Ðhad€been€placed€under€the€flood€plain€designation€in€February€of€1998.€€The€CourtÐ 4„ Ðdetermines,€however,€that€these€circumstances€do€not€raise€facts€to€warrant€a€trial€onÐ  p Ðthe€claim€of€negligent€misrepresentation.€.€.€.Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à.€.€.€.ÐøHÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€dismisses€the€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€for€unjust€enrichment.€.€.€Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€dismisses€the€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€for€mutual€mistake€of€fact.Ð Ð  ÐThe€Court€determines€that€in€this€case€there€is€not€a€mistake€of€fact€but€of€law.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðplaintiff€was€under€the€misapprehension€that€the€flood€plain€law€did€not€apply€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðlots€in€issue.€€The€Court€adopts€the€legal€authority€cited€by€defendantsðð€counsel:Ð ”ä Ðð ðIgnorance€of€the€law€is€not€a€mistake€of€fact,€but€of€law.€€Ignorance€of€the€law€is€noÐ €Ð Ðground€to€rescind€agreements€or€to€set€aside€the€solemn€act€of€the€parties.ðð€€òòDavis€v.Ð l¼ ÐMetropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€Countyóó,€620€S.W.2d€532,€535„Ð X ¨ Ð36€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Court€dismisses€the€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€under€the€TennesseeÐ 0"€  ÐConsumer€Protection€Act.€.€.€.Ð#l!Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIn€sum,€as€to€the€complaint,€the€Court€concludes€that€what€has€happened€inÐ $X" Ðthis€case€is€that€there€was€a€mistake€concerning€the€law.€.€.€.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTurning€to€the€defendantsðð€counterclaim,€the€Court€determines€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendants€are€entitled€to€summary€judgment€for€breach€of€contract.€€ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€July€10,2000,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€Motion€to€Alter€or€Amend.€€On€September€20,€2000,Ð ¤(ô#' Ða€Memorandum€and€Order€was€entered€by€the€trial€court€stating:Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà ` àWhen€the€parties€argued€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€CourtÐ ° Ðâ âoverlooked€a€handwritten€addendum€on€the€second€page€of€the€contract€which€statesÐ œì Ðthat€the€ð ðBuyer€[plaintiff]€reserves€right€upon€30€days€notice€to€Seller€to€endÐ ˆØ Ðagreement€with€Seller€retaining€remaining€earnest€money€and€Buyer€paying€SellerÐ tÄ Ðnext€thirty€days€interest€when€normally€due.ðð€€The€record€established€that€theÐ `° Ðbuyer/plaintiff€gave€notice€to€the€seller€by€letter€dated€March€14,€1999,€that€the€buyerÐ L œ Ðdid€not€intend€to€purchase€the€remaining€lots.€€That€letter€was€followed€by€anotherÐ 8 ˆ Ðletter€dated€June€17,€1999,€from€the€plaintiffððs€attorney€notifying€the€defendant€thatÐ $ t Ðthe€plaintiff€was€cancelling€the€contract€as€to€the€purchase€of€additional€lots.€Ð  ` ÐAccordingly€the€record€established,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€the€plaintiff,€as€per€theÐ ü L  Ðpartiesðð€agreement,€ended€the€agreement.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€defendantsÐ è 8  Ðare€not€entitled€to€specific€performance.€€As€a€matter€of€law€the€relief€to€which€theÐ Ô$  Ðdefendants€are€entitled€is€retention€of€the€remaining€balance€of€the€earnest€money€andÐ À  Ðinterest€for€30€days€after€receipt€of€the€date€of€notification.€€Ð¬ü Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ#†XÉXX XÉo#ÔÔ‡ XÉXXXÉÔà  àThe€plaintiff€now€appeals.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAppellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€the€defendantsðð€summary€judgment€asÐ \¬ Ðto€the€plaintiffððs€claims€for€intentional€or€fraudulent€misrepresentation,€negligent€misrepresentation,Ð H˜ Ðmutual€mistake,€and€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€Further,€the€appellantÐ 4„ Ðasserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€plaintiff€summary€judgment€based€on€mutual€mistake.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€standard€for€reviewing€summary€judgments€on€appeal€is€well-settled€and€familiar.Ð øH ÐAppellate€review€is€de€novo€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòWebber€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.Ð ä4 ÐIns.€Co.óó,€49€S.W.3d€265,€269€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòMooney€v.€Sneedóó,€30€S.W.3d€304,€306€(Tenn.Ð Ð  Ð2000)).€€Accordingly,€reviewing€courts€must€make€a€fresh€determination€concerning€whether€theÐ ¼  Ðrequirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€satisfied.€€ð ðIn€reviewing€the€record,€ðð[c]ourts€mustÐ ¨ø Ðview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€allÐ ”ä Ðreasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.ðð€òò€Webberóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€269òò€óó(citingòò€StaplesÐ €Ð Ðv.€CBL€&€Assocs.,€Incóó.,€15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000)).€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àA€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€only€when€there€are€no€genuine€factual€disputes€withÐ D!” Ðregard€to€the€claim€or€defense,€and€when€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÐ 0"€  Ðlaw.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04;€òòBrown€v.€Birman€Managed€Care,€Incóó.,€42€S.W.3d€62,€66€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð #l! ÐThus,€a€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€only€when€the€undisputed€facts€reasonably€support€oneÐ $X" Ðconclusion--that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€òò€McCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995)€(citing€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23€(Tenn.€1995)).€€In€orderÐ à%0!$ Ðto€be€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€moving€party€must€either€affirmatively€negate€anÐ Ì&"% Ðessential€element€of€the€non„moving€partyððs€claim€or€establish€an€affirmative€defense€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðconclusively€defeats€the€non„moving€partyððs€claim.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€215€n.€5€(Tenn.Ð ¤(ô#' Ð1993).€Ð )à$( ÐÌÓ  ÓPlaintiffððs€Intentional€and€Negligent€Misrepresentation€ClaimsÐ h+¸&* ЇÓE@Óà  àThe€plaintiff€has€asserted€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€defendantsððÐ ° Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment€as€to€the€intentional€and€negligent€misrepresentation€claims.€€We€firstÐ œì Ðaddress€the€plaintiffððs€argument€with€regard€to€the€intentional€misrepresentation€claim.€€Specifically,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€plaintiff€alleges€that€there€are€three€disputed€questions€of€fact€concerning€allegedÐ tÄ Ðmisrepresentations€which€include:€€(1)€The€plaintiff€testified€in€his€deposition€that€the€defendant,€JeffÐ `° ÐGeorge,€specifically€told€him€the€lots€were€not€in€a€flood€plain;€(2)€the€subdivision€plat€given€to€theÐ L œ Ðplaintiff€contained€the€representation€that€none€of€the€property€was€in€a€flood€plain;€and€(3)€the€RealÐ 8 ˆ ÐEstate€Purchase€Agreement€represented€that€the€lots€were€ð ðresidential€building€lots.ðð€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àð ðThe€elements€of€intentional€misrepresentation€are€based€on€the€common€law€action€for€fraudÐ ü L  Ðand€deceit.ðð€€òòOgle€v.€Runionóó,€No.€03A01-9108-CV-307,€1992€WL€9438,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.Ð è 8  Ð24,€1992).€€An€action€for€intentional€or€fraudulent€misrepresentation€contains€four€elements:€(1)€anÐ Ô$  Ðintentional€misrepresentation€of€material€fact,€(2)€knowledge€of€the€representationððs€falsity,€(3)€anÐ À  Ðinjury€caused€by€reasonable€reliance€on€the€representation,€and€(4)€the€misrepresentation€involvesÐ ¬ü  Ða€past€or€existing€fact.€€òòAxline€v.€Kutneróó,€863€S.W.2d€421,€423€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€SummaryÐ ˜è  Ðjudgment€is€appropriate€when€ð ðthe€nonmoving€party€is€unable€to€establish€any€essential€element€ofÐ „Ô  Ðits€case€on€which€it€will€have€the€burden€of€proof€at€trial.ðð€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€213.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àNext,€we€turn€to€the€elements€of€negligent€misrepresentation.€€The€plaintiff€has€asserted€onÐ H˜ Ðappeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€as€to€theÐ 4„ Ðnegligent€misrepresentation€claim.Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà ` àTennessee€adopted€Section€552€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ð ðas€theÐ øH Ðguiding€principle€in€negligent€misrepresentation€actions€against€other€professionalsÐ ä4 Ðand€business€persons.ðð€òòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.€1997);Ð Ð  ÐòòBethlehem€Steel€Corp.€v.€Ernst€&€Whinneyóó,€822€S.W.2d€592,€595€(Tenn.€1991).€Ð ¼  ÐSection€552€provides€in€pertinent€part:€Ð¨øÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(1)€à0` Ð Ð àOne€who,€in€the€course€of€his€business,€profession€or€employment,€or€in€anyÐ €Ð Ðother€transaction€in€which€he€has€a€pecuniary€interest,€supplies€falseÐ l¼ Ðinformation€for€the€guidance€of€others€in€their€business€transactions,€isÐ X ¨ Ðsubject€to€liability€for€pecuniary€loss€caused€to€them€by€their€justifiableÐ D!” Ðreliance€upon€the€information,€if€he€fails€to€exercise€reasonable€care€orÐ 0"€  Ðcompetence€in€obtaining€or€communicating€the€information.€Ð#l!` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€à0` Ð Ð àExcept€as€stated€in€Subsection€(3),€the€liability€stated€in€Subsection€(1)€isÐ $X" Ðlimited€to€loss€suffered€Ðô$D #` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(a)€à0¸ Ð Ð àby€the€person€or€one€of€a€limited€group€of€persons€for€whose€benefitÐ à%0!$ Ðand€guidance€he€intends€to€supply€the€information€or€knows€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðrecipient€intends€to€supply€it;€and€Ð¸'#&¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(b)€à0¸ Ð Ð àthrough€reliance€upon€it€in€a€transaction€that€he€intends€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinformation€to€influence€or€knows€that€the€recipient€so€intends€or€inÐ )à$( Ða€substantially€similar€transaction.€Ð|*Ì%)¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐòòCummins€v.€Opryland€Productionsóó,€No.€M1998-00934-COA-R3-CV,€2001€WL€219696,€at€*6€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCt.€App.€March€7,€2001)€(citing€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€ðð€552€(1977)).Ð œì ÐÌà  àThus,€a€plaintiff€seeking€damages€for€negligent€misrepresentation€must€prove€the€followingÐ tÄ Ðelements:€Ð `° ÐÌà8  à(1)€that€the€defendant€was€acting€in€the€course€of€its€business,€profession,€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðemployment,€or€in€a€transaction€in€which€it€had€a€pecuniary€(as€opposed€toÐ $ t Ðgratuitous)€interest;€Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€that€the€defendant€supplied€faulty€information€meant€to€guide€others€in€theirÐ ü L  Ðbusiness€transactions;€Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€that€the€defendant€failed€to€exercise€reasonable€care€in€obtaining€orÐ Ô$  Ðcommunicating€the€information;€and€ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€that€the€plaintiff€justifiably€relied€upon€the€information€provided€by€the€defendant.€Ð¬ü Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAmerican€Cable€Corp.€v.€ACI€Management,€Inc.óó,€No.€M1997-00280-C0A-R3-CV,€2000€WLÐ „Ô  Ð1291265,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€14,€2000)€(citing€òòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€427Ð pÀ Ð(Tenn.1997);€òòRitter€v.€Custom€Chemicides,€Incóó.,€912€S.W.2d€128,€130€(Tenn.€1995);€òòJohn€MartinÐ \¬ ÐCo.€v.€Morse/Diesel,€Incóó.,€819€S.W.2d€428,€431€(Tenn.€1991)).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWe€find€no€merit€in€the€plaintiffððs€misrepresentation€claims.€€The€trial€court€correctlyÐ  p Ðdetermined€that€the€plaintiff€was€unable€to€establish€essential€elements€of€the€intentionalÐ  \ Ðmisrepresentation€and€the€negligent€misrepresentation€claim.€€The€record€before€us€reveals€that€theÐ øH Ðdefendants€did€not€have€any€knowledge€that€the€Federal€Emergency€Management€Agency€amendedÐ ä4 Ðthe€flood€map€in€February€1998.€€Further,€the€record€does€not€contain€any€information€that€supportsÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€defendants€knew€the€lots€were€placed€in€the€flood€plain.€€Both€defendants€testified€inÐ ¼  Ðdepositions€that€they€were€unaware€the€lots€were€in€a€flood€plain€and€the€record€contains€no€evidenceÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€contrary.€€As€such,€no€reasonable€person€could€conclude€that€the€defendants€made€anÐ ”ä Ðintentional€misrepresentation€of€a€material€fact€upon€which€the€plaintiff€relied€or€that€the€defendantsÐ €Ð Ðhad€knowledge€of€the€representationððs€falsity.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAn€additional€ground€for€dismissing€the€plaintiffððs€cause€of€action€for€intentionalÐ D!” Ðmisrepresentation€and€also€for€negligent€misrepresentation€is€that€the€record€does€not€show€an€issueÐ 0"€  Ðof€material€fact€as€to€the€plaintiffððs€reliance€on€the€defendantsðð€representations.€€The€plaintiffÐ #l! Ðadmitted€he€did€not€rely€on€the€defendantsðð€representations€that€the€plat€was€correct.€€The€plaintiffÐ $X" Ðwas€an€experienced€home€builder€and€performed€his€own€research.€€The€plaintiff€and€his€wife€wentÐ ô$D # Ðto€the€Metro€courthouse€to€perform€their€own€research.€€The€plaintiffððs€wife,€Donna€Robertson,Ð à%0!$ Ðtestified€in€her€deposition€that€ð ðwe€went€to€the€courthouse€to€see€if€that€was€the€original€plat€becauseÐ Ì&"% ÐI€mean€we€didnððt€know€if€that€was€the€original€or€what€it€was.€€We€werenððt,€you€know,€just€going€toÐ ¸'#& Ðgo€by€his€word€that€that€was€it.€€So€we€went€to€see€if€there€was€another€updated€or€revised€copy.ðð€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThe€plaintiff€testified€that€ð ð[w]e€checked€to€make€sure€there€had€been€no€revisions€to€the€plat,ðð€andÐ )à$( Ðâ âhe€found€through€his€research€that€there€were€no€revisions.€€The€facts€of€the€record€and€all€reasonableÐ |*Ì%) Ðinferences€drawn€from€them€establish€that€the€defendants€believed€that€the€lots€were€not€in€the€floodÐ ° Ðplain.€€Even€the€plaintiffððs€efforts€did€not€reveal€the€amendment€to€the€flood€plain€level.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€defendants€did€not€fail€to€exercise€reasonable€care€in€obtaining€or€communicatingÐ tÄ Ðinformation€regarding€the€lots€€to€the€plaintiff.€€The€defendants€employed€professional€engineers€toÐ `° Ðassist€them€in€obtaining€approval€for€the€subdivision€from€the€Metropolitan€Planning€Commission.€Ð L œ ÐThe€subdivision€plat€reflected€that€the€lots€were€not€in€the€flood€plain€and€was€approved€by€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐMetropolitan€Planning€Commission€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€and€recorded€in€the€RegisterÐ $ t Ðof€Deeds€Office€for€Davidson€County€on€January€7,€1998.€€The€flood€plain€was€changed€less€thanÐ  ` Ða€month€after€the€plat€was€approved€and€recorded.€€The€plaintiff€was€an€experienced€home€builder,Ð ü L  Ðperformed€his€own€research€at€the€Davidson€County€courthouse,€and€obtained€a€copy€of€the€plat€fromÐ è 8  Ða€professional€engineer.€€Based€upon€the€record,€the€plaintiff€cannot€prove€the€necessary€elementsÐ Ô$  Ðfor€the€negligent€misrepresentation€claim€and€summary€judgment€was€appropriate.€Ð À  ÐÌÓ  ÓPlaintiffððs€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€ClaimÐ ˜è  ÐÌÓ0fÓà  àAs€to€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€record€doesÐ pÀ Ðnot€establish€that€the€defendants€in€any€way€acted€unfairly,€deceitfully,€or€made€misrepresentations.€Ð \¬ ÐAfter€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€can€find€nothing€in€the€record€to€support€the€plaintiffððsÐ H˜ Ðassertion€that€the€defendants€intentionally€or€negligently€misrepresented€the€lots€or€that€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendants€failed€to€exercise€reasonable€care€in€providing€the€plaintiff€with€information.€€TheÐ  p Ðdefendants€did€not€act€unfairly,€deceitfully,€or€made€intentional€misrepresentations€in€any€way.€€Thus,Ð  \ Ðsummary€judgment€was€proper.€€Ð øH ÐÌÓ  ÓMutual€MistakeÐ Ð  ÐÌÓiÓà  àRelying€primarily€on€òòDavis€v.€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville,€et€al.óó,€620€S.W.2d€532Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981),€the€trial€court€held€that€the€mutual€mistake€of€the€parties€in€not€realizing€thatÐ ”ä Ðsome€of€the€lots€in€issue€were€in€the€revised€flood€plain€designated€by€the€Federal€EmergencyÐ €Ð ÐManagement€Agency€in€February€1998€was€a€mistake€of€law€and€not€a€mistake€of€fact.€€In€thisÐ l¼ Ðrespect€the€trial€court€is€in€error.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àòòDavisóó€involved€a€case€where€the€plaintiff,€thinking€his€property€was€in€a€zoned€areaÐ 0"€  Ðforbidding€ð ðjunk€vehiclesðð€disposed€of€such€vehicles€only€to€thereafter€discover€that€his€property€wasÐ #l! Ðexempted€from€this€provision€of€the€zoning€ordinance€by€a€ten€year€grandfather€clause.€€He€thenÐ $X" Ðsought€to€recover€from€Metropolitan€Nashville€for€the€wrongful€enforcement€of€a€zoning€ordinance.€Ð ô$D # ÐMetropolitan€Nashville€did€not€force€him€to€sell€his€junk€vehicles€but€rather€he€did€so€voluntarilyÐ à%0!$ Ðunder€the€mistaken€impression€that€in€continuing€to€store€the€cars€he€was€violating€the€zoningÐ Ì&"% Ðordinance.€€The€court€held€that€a€partyððs€ignorance€of€the€law€provides€no€basis€for€recovery.€€òòId.óó€atÐ ¸'#& Ð535.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€however,€when€the€parties€entered€into€their€December€18,€1998€contract,Ð |*Ì%) Ðthe€lots€in€issue€were€either€in€the€designated€FEMA€February€1998€flood€plain€or€they€were€not.€Ð h+¸&* ÐThis€is€fact€not€law.€€At€least€at€this€summary€judgment€stage€material€issues€of€fact€are€evident€asÐ ° Ðto€whether€or€not€both€parties€labored€under€a€mistake€of€material€fact.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€òòIsaacs€v.€Bokoróó,€566€S.W.2d€532€(Tenn.€1978),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€observed:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà ` àA€purchaser€who€has€been€the€victim€of€a€misrepresentation€or€who€has€beenÐ L œ Ðinduced€to€contract€through€a€mistake€of€material€fact€mutual€to€him€and€his€vendor,Ð 8 ˆ Ðis€afforded€by€courts€both€of€law€and€equity€with€a€number€of€alternate€remedies,Ð $ t Ðincluding€actions€for€rescission€and€restitution,€actions€for€breach€of€contract€andÐ  ` Ðactions€in€tort€for€misrepresentation.€€òòSee€generallyóó€12„13€Williston,òò€Contracts€óóððððÐ ü L  Ð1469,€1523,€1542,€1598€(3d€ed.€Ô_ÔJaegerÔ_Ô€1970);€5€Ô_ÔCorbinÔ_Ô,€òòContractsóó€ððððÔ#†XÉXX XÉð5#ÔÔ‡ XÉXXXÉÔ€1105€et€seq.Ð è 8  Ð(1964);€37€Ô_ÔAm.JurÔ_Ô.2d,€òòFraud€and€Deceitóó€ððððÔ#†XÉXX XÉt#ÔÔ‡ XÉXXXÉÔ€327€et€seq.€(1968).€€All€that€the€lawÐ Ô$  Ðrequires€of€such€a€purchaser€is€that€he€elect€consistently€among€the€remediesÐ À  Ðavailable€to€him.€€Of€course,€by€his€conduct€he€may€not€both€affirm€and€at€the€sameÐ ¬ü  Ðtime€Ô_ÔdisaffirmÔ_Ô€his€contract.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔLambornÔ_Ô€&€Co.€v.€Green€&€Greenóó,€150€Tenn.€38,€51,Ð ˜è  Ð262€S.W.467,€470„71€(1923);€12€Williston,€òòContractsóó€ðð€1528€(3d€ed.€Ô_ÔJaegerÔ_Ô€1970).Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIsaacsóó,€566€S.W.2d€532,€537„38.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€or€not€the€remedy€of€recission€is€available€to€the€plaintiff,€it€isÐ 4„ Ðnecessary€to€determine€whether€or€not€the€contract€in€issue€is€entire€or€severable.€€If€the€contract€isÐ  p Ðentire,€Plaintiff€cannot€restore€the€status€quo€as€Plaintiff€has€already€built€homes€on€and€sold€theÐ  \ Ðseven€lots€not€in€the€amended€flood€plain.€€Only€the€five€lots€purchased€by€the€plaintiff€that€areÐ øH Ðlocated€in€the€amended€flood€plain€and€the€four€lots€remaining€Ô_ÔunpurchasedÔ_Ô€by€the€plaintiffs€areÐ ä4 Ðinvolved.€€In€òòÔ_ÔLovedayÔ_Ô€v.€Kateóó,€854€S.W.2d€877€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€this€Court€observed:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€is€well€settled€in€this€jurisdiction€that€a€contract€cannot€be€rescinded€withoutÐ ¨ø Ðrestoring€the€ð ðstatus€quo.ðð€€òòBrady€v.€Oliveróó,€125€Tenn.€595,€147€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€1135€(1911);Ð ”ä ÐòòHawkins€v.€Ô_ÔByrnÔ_Ôóó,€150€Tenn.€1,€261€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€980€(1923);€òòJones€v.€Ô_ÔMosleyÔ_Ôóó,€29€Tenn.€App.Ð €Ð Ð559,€198€S.W.2d€652€(1947);€òòIsaacs€v.€Ô_ÔBokerÔ_Ôóó,€566€S.W.2d€532€(Tenn.€1978);€37Ð l¼ ÐÔ_ÔAm.JurÔ_Ô.2d€Fraud€and€Deceit€ðð€335€p.€447;€13€Williston,€Law€of€Contracts€ðð€1594€p.Ð X ¨ Ð579.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌòòÔ_ÔLovedayÔ_Ôóó,€854€S.W.2d€877,€881€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€remedy€of€recission€is€available,€however,€if€the€contract€is€severable.€€This€Court€hasÐ ô$D # Ðruled:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àAs€a€general€rule,€a€contract€can€only€be€rescinded€òòin€totoóó.€€A€contract€can€be€partiallyÐ ¸'#& Ðrescinded€where€the€contract€is€severable.€€A€contract€is€severable€where€each€partÐ ¤(ô#' Ðis€so€independent€of€each€other€as€to€form€a€separate€contract.€€The€basic€premiseÐ )à$( Ðbehind€disallowing€a€party€to€affirm€in€part€and€repudiate€in€part€is€that€one€shouldÐ |*Ì%) Ðnot€be€able€to€ð ðaccept€the€benefits€on€the€one€hand€while€he€shirks€its€disadvantagesÐ h+¸&* Ðon€the€other.ðð€€17A€Ô_ÔC.J.S.Ô_Ô€òòContractsóó€ðð€416€(1963);€òòSee€Baird€v.€Ô_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ô€PrintingÐ ° ÐCo.,€Inc.óó,€25€Tenn.€App.€144,€153€S.W.2d€135€(1941).МìÐ Ð  ÐÌòòJames€Cable€Partners€v.€Jamestownóó,€818€S.W.2d€338,€344€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àÔ#†XÉXX XÉFu#ÔThe€contract€in€the€record€before€the€Court€is€a€severable€one.€€Each€lot€is€to€be€purchasedÐ L œ Ðfor€$18,500.00€per€lot.€€One€sixteenth€of€the€$10,000.00€earnest€money€payment€is€apportioned€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðeach€of€the€sixteen€(16)€separate€lots€forming€a€part€of€the€original€contract.€€Of€perhaps€moreÐ $ t Ðsignificance,€the€addendum€to€the€contract€allows€the€purchaser€to€refuse€to€purchase€particular€lotsÐ  ` Ðsuffering€for€such€refusal€only€loss€of€his€earnest€money€and€interest.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€held:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA€contract€may€have€several€parts.€€A€breach€of€one€part€will€excuse€all€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpromised€performance€by€the€other€party€where€the€contract€is€to€be€performed€onlyÐ ˜è  Ðas€a€whole.€€òòÔ_ÔBrockettÔ_Ô€v.€Pipkinóó,€25€Tenn.€App.€1,€149€S.W.2d€478,€483€(Tenn.€App.Ð „Ô  Ð1940).€€In€such€a€case,€we€call€the€contract€ð ðentire,ðð€and€ð ðthe€complete€fulfillment€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€contract€by€either€side€is€required€as€a€condition€precedent€to€the€fulfillment€ofÐ \¬ Ðany€part€of€the€contract€by€the€other.ðð€€òòBradford€&€Carson€v.€Montgomery€FurnitureÐ H˜ ÐCo.óó,€115€Tenn.€610,€92€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€1104€at€1109€(Tenn.€1906).Ð4„Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIf,€however,€ð ðseveral€things€are€to€be€done€under€a€contract,€and€the€moneyÐ  p Ðconsideration€to€be€paid€is€apportioned€to€each€of€the€items,€the€contract€is€ordinarilyÐ  \ Ðregarded€as€severable.ðð€€17A€Ô_ÔAm.JurÔ_Ô.2d€òòContracts€óóðð€418.€€In€that€case,€ð ðneither€partyÐ øH Ðcan€claim€more€than€an€equivalent€for€the€actual€consideration€on€his€part.ðð€€òòBradfordÐ ä4 Ðand€Carson€v.€Montgomery€Furniture€Co.óó,€115€Tenn.€610,€92€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€1104€at€1109Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1906).м Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHogan€v.€Ô_ÔCoyneÔ_Ô€Intern.€Enterprises€Corp.óó,€996€S.W.2d€195,€200€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAt€this€summary€judgment€stage€of€the€case,€we€determine€only€that€the€case€must€be€triedÐ l¼ Ðon€its€merits€as€to€mutual€mistake€of€fact€and€that€the€contract,€as€it€appears€before€this€Court€at€thisÐ X ¨ Ðtime,€is€a€severable€one.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€remedies€in€this€situation€largely€address€themselves€in€the€first€instance€to€the€discretionÐ #l! Ðof€the€Chancellor.€€òòWilson€v.€Mid„State€Homes,€Inc.óó,€384€S.W.2d€459,€464€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1964).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€issues€of€mutual€mistake€of€fact€and€any€evidence€that€might€reflect€upon€theÐ à%0!$ Ðseverability€of€the€contract,€the€judgment€of€the€Chancellor€is€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€forÐ Ì&"% Ðtrial€on€the€merits.€€The€action€of€the€trial€court€in€granting€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants€onÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€issues€of€intentional€and€negligent€misrepresentation€and€violation€of€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÐ ¤(ô#' ÐProtection€Act€is€affirmed.Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* ЇÌà  àCosts€of€the€cause€are€assessed€equally€to€the€parties.Ð œì ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð L œ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE