ÿWPC Ð8ØÞM…†žà¦øHÍfGìïvðI« rk¯È‘?à-ß«Øp%|Fî†~,mgjÀ•¢S0â­ÂÊ¡I Jî<¯ÿ\yÀÁ„½ÊÃð²O/ÖÙà@T@²CÂy®í¨Çõæhðx‰Û5óšºW%w3°RÉíìi¥Ý¤±ÛÙ~–b+  kIýžr&ÛêXäîxÃö;Ò&[AKz*ÄÅ”P>×.]_ÑŸLÀM:•ˆK®ë?䨬 ¢!®Ì öeÁ#Ò^ɨZx¢VOAÝVΩutÔqk“àk.v°‹Ž-öÕÏsÅ‘YeöÚòŠîÄH£°çûØ]¶Èz°gÒ_x!Õ½*{QÉÙZk\ ­Ì`?“K+@Åõ¹“óLZWÖBØ24Â]q—¶XÄBë1üW¤}f[½º̺ýÈ$‡:ö]ÖnJ$f£¢ÍÍ´u,¯ßhM>ú•ç*J£¿U,R¾4 ãÆïð:§æ5ÈÞ Ãè¸kå{)è‰{~«™†O?w 㡬’Ó~럘ßeuŠÂá9y\Þ>AÐ&<3î”jÕ/4`pÚÔ\;ê{ÿ¤Y¥}Ñ\wBn¸È^n_úu„°9¹Ø{:~„¹¬½"[€pò„êåiäáb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz N‘ Æ“ ÆY Æ Æå 0D«NïUNñU@?E{üüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüb 0ë     B÷÷ 0¤ D3¸ D-ë 0K AScƶ 0¤| 0D  A«d˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»Žu)L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜L-( bk1<°£ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó'Ör Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman  qÝ ƒRæ|$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÍDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÍDòòôÍDÔThe€plaintiff€had€alleged€Ô_ÔtortiousÔ_Ô€misrepresentation€along€with€breach€of€contract€and/or€warranty€seekingÐ ° Ðboth€compensatory€and€punitive€damages.€€òòò òóóó ó - ù-(|G2æ|$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€§¬»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÍDò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€§¬»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€§¬»»dd8ÑÑ 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€²;XXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îø/§¬ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼§¬»îîø/ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓApril€2000€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡X²;X»¼§¬ÔÌò òÔ#†¼§¬»XX²;í#ÔCYBILL€SHEPHERDòòóó€v.€WEATHER€SHIELD€MANUFACTURING,€INC.òòóóÔ‡X²;X»¼§¬Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€106636„1€€€€€€Walter€L.€Evans,€ChancellorÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„00508„COA„R3„CVÐ ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€plaintiff€brought€suit€against€a€manufacturer€of€windows€and€doors€for€allegedly€supplyingÐ ¶ Ðdefective€products€which€allowed€substantial€leaks€into€her€dwelling€and€caused€rotting€because€ofÐ ¦ö Ðexcessive€moisture.€€Following€a€nonjury€trial,€the€trial€court€denied€the€plaintiffððs€claim€pursuantÐ –æ Ðto€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€but€awarded€judgment€to€the€plaintiff€on€her€claim€thatÐ †Ö Ðthe€defendant€supplied€defective€doors€and€windows.€€Based€upon€our€review,€we€affirm€the€trialÐ vÆ Ðcourtððs€denial€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€claim.€€Finding€that€the€plaintiff€did€notÐ f¶ Ðprovide€notice€to€the€defendant€of€its€allegedly€defective€product€within€the€applicable€statute€ofÐ V¦ Ðlimitations,€we€reverse€the€award€of€damages€to€the€plaintiff€and€dismiss€her€complaint.ò òÐ F– Ðó óÓaÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó ó€ò òin€Part,€Reversed€in€Part,Ð &v Ðand€Remandedó óÐ f ÐÌòòÓ  ÓAlan€E.€Glenn,€Sp.Ô#†¼§¬»àX²;t#ÔÔ‡X²;X.¼§¬Ôóó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,Ð öF ÐW.S.,óó€and€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó,€joined.Ð æ6 ÐÌKenneth€R.€Shuttleworth€and€William€C.€Sessions,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€WeatherÐ Æ  ÐShield€Manufacturing,€Inc.Ð ¶!  ÐÌJeffrey€A.€Land€and€Timothy€P.€Harrison,€Atoka,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Cybill€Shepherd.Ð –#æ" ÐÓÏÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼§¬»XX²; #ÔÔ‡X²;X»¼§¬ÔÐ v%Æ $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼§¬»XX²;0 #ÔÔ€X²;X»¼§¬ÔÓ  ÓÑ8€!X XdìXXdð8Ñò òà  àó óThe€plaintiff,€Cybill€Shepherd,€brought€a€complaint€against€the€defendant,€Weather€ShieldÐ V'¦"& ÐManufacturing€Inc.,€because€it€allegedly€supplied€defective€windows€and€doors€for€a€residence€whichÐ F(–#' Ðwas€constructed€for€the€plaintiff€at€a€development€on€the€bluff€overlooking€the€Mississippi€River€inÐ 6)†$( ÐMemphis,€Tennessee.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€and€judgment€awarded€to€the€plaintiff,€the€defendantÐ &*v%) Ðtimely€appealed,€presenting€the€following€issues:Ð +f&* ÐÌÓ*°,XƒX× –X°œX*Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.à8× ` x` xà€Is€an€exclusion€of€consequential€damages€unconscionableÐ ö,F(, Ðor€invalid€as€a€matter€of€law€if€a€warranty€fails?Ð#æ-6)-× × ýA #Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àII.€à8× ` x` xàIs€a€buyer€barred€from€any€remedy€for€breach€when€theÐ ° Ðbuyer€does€not€notify€the€seller€of€any€defect€within€theÐ  ð Ðwarranty€period?Ðà× ×  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIII.€à8× ` x` xàShould€a€claim€for€damages€to€a€home€be€dismissed€whenÐ pÀ Ðthere€is€no€evidence€that€plaintiff€owns€the€home?Ð` °× ×  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIV.€à8× ` x` xàDoes€an€agreement€that€expressly€releases€all€persons€fromÐ @  Ðð ðany€and€all€claimsðð€resulting€from€an€architectððs€servicesÐ 0 € Ðand€advice€release€a€window€manufacturer€from€water„Ð  p  Ðdamage€claims€when€the€architect€selected€windows€thatÐ `  Ðwere€inappropriate€for€the€type€of€exterior€finish€used€andÐ P  Ðthen€refused€to€allow€proper€installation?Ðð@ × ×  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àV.€à8× ` x` xàThe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€lawÐ Ð  Ðregarding€damage€calculations€are€unsupported€by€credibleÐ À Ðevidence€in€the€record€and,€therefore,€based€on€speculationÐ ° Ðand€conjecture.Рð× ×  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àVI.€à8× ` x` xàThe€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€the€plaintiff€$4,000€inÐ €Ð Ðdiscretionary€costs.ÐpÀ× ×  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€raised€an€additional€issue€on€appeal:Ð P  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àI.€à8× ` x` xàDid€the€trial€court€err€in€not€finding€that€the€defendant€hadÐ 0€ Ðviolated€the€Tennessee€Consumer€€Protection€Act?à È àà0 × × àà È àà0   àà È àà0   àà È àÐ p   ÐÌò òÓ  ÓFACTSó óÐ P ÐÓ³ÓÌà  àIn€1991,€the€plaintiff,€Cybill€Shepherd,€entered€into€a€contract€for€construction€of€a€residenceÐ à0 Ðon€€lots€3€and€4€of€South€Bluff,€Magnolia€Mound€Drive,€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€Walton€WatsonÐ Ð  ÐConstruction€Company,€with€whom€the€plaintiff€contracted€on€August€5,€1991,€was€to€be€the€generalÐ À! Ðcontractor.€The€plaintiff€contracted€with€Francis€Mah€to€be€the€architect.€€Mr.€Mah€had€graduatedÐ °"  Ðfrom€Yale€University€in€1952,€receiving€both€a€bachelorððs€degree,€as€well€as€a€masterððs€degree€inÐ  #ð! Ðarchitecture.€€He€was€employed€as€an€architect€with€the€Memphis€architectural€firm€Jones,€Mah,Ð $à" ÐGaskill€and€Rhodes€from€approximately€1955€until€1990.€€For€the€past€five€years,€Mr.€Mah€hadÐ €%Ð # Ðtaught€architectural€design€at€the€University€of€Memphis.Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà  àAs€originally€designed,€the€house€was€to€have€an€ð ðexterior€insulating€finishing€system€(FFIS),Ð P( #& Ðcommonly€referred€to€as€Dryvit€drywall.ðð€A€stipulation€of€the€parties€was€that€Dryvit€constructionÐ @)$' Ðdetail€ð ðincludes€a€rain€barrier€which€is€designed€to€function€as€a€weatherproof€membrane€to€keep€rainÐ 0*€%( Ðâ âfrom€penetrating€the€interior€of€the€walls.ðð€Subsequently,€change€order€no.€3,€dated€April€3,€1991,€Ð  +p&) Ðprovided€that€the€exterior€of€the€plaintiffððs€house€was€to€be€natural€stucco,€rather€than€Dryvit,€as€firstÐ ° Ðintended.€€Ð  ð Ðâ âÌà  àThere€were€numerous€defects€in€the€house,€consisting€primarily€of€rotting€wood€aroundÐ €Ð Ðwindows€and€doors€and€water€leaks€in€various€parts€of€the€house.€€An€additional€stipulation€of€theÐ pÀ Ðparties€was€that€ð ð[no]€moisture€barrier€[was]€installed€between€the€structure€and€the€stuccoÐ ` ° Ðapplication€causing€water€penetration€throughout€the€residence.ðð€€Based€€upon€the€€numerous€defectsÐ P   Ðduring€the€construction,€the€plaintiff€brought€this€action€against€the€general€contractor,€the€architect,Ð @  Ðthe€subcontractor€which€had€applied€the€stucco€finish€to€the€house,€the€material€supplier€which€hadÐ 0 € Ðfurnished€the€doors€and€windows€for€the€house,€the€electrical€subcontractor,€and€Weather€Shield,€theÐ  p  Ðmanufacturer€of€some€of€the€windows€and€doors€incorporated€into€the€house.€Before€the€trial€of€theÐ `  Ðcomplaint€against€Weather€Shield,€the€claims€as€to€all€of€the€other€defendants€had€been€resolved.Ð P  ÐFollowing€the€trial€in€this€matter,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€plaintiff€a€judgment€against€WeatherÐ ð@  ÐShield€in€the€amount€of€$108,882.00.Ð à0  ÐÌà  àFrancis€Mah,€the€designer€of€the€house,€decided€to€utilize€wood€windows€which€he€intendedÐ À Ðto€purchase€from€Schaefer€Sash€and€Door,€a€Memphis€company€which€sold€windows€from€severalÐ ° Ðdifferent€manufacturers.€He€reviewed€warranty€information€from€Weather€Shield,€and€decided€toÐ  ð Ðutilize€their€windows€rather€than€those€made€by€Pella,€another€window€manufacturer,€because,Ð à Ðalthough€the€Pella€windows€were€more€expensive,€the€windows€were€similar€in€appearance.€€As€Mr.Ð €Ð ÐMah€requested,€Schaefer€ordered€for€the€house€Weather€Shield€€wood€windows€with€standard€brickÐ pÀ Ðmolds.€The€windows€were€shipped€by€Weather€Shield€to€Schaefer€on€January€12,€1992,€which,€inÐ `° Ðturn,€delivered€the€windows€on€January€29,€1992,€to€the€site€where€the€plaintiffððs€house€was€beingÐ P  Ðconstructed.€The€windows€were€installed€by€Watson,€the€general€contractor€€€€Ð @ Ðà  àÌà  àAt€some€point,€in€an€attempt€to€determine€what€was€causing€the€leaking€problems,€contactÐ  p Ðwas€made,€first€apparently,€with€Schaefer€Sash€and€Door.€€According€to€the€testimony€of€JimÐ ` ÐWatson,€there€were€a€ð ðcouple€of€conversations€with€Schaefer€Sash€and€door€[sic],ðð€who€came€to€theÐ P Ðsite€once.€€Watson€and€Mah€were€then€ð ðput€in€touch€with€some€representatives€from€Weather€Shield,Ð ð@ Ðand€we€had€a€couple€of€phone€conversations.ðð€€Later,€two€Weather€Shield€representatives€met€withÐ à0 ÐMah€and€Watson€at€the€plaintiffððs€residence.€€Watson€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€when€thisÐ Ð  Ðmeeting€took€place.€€The€trial€court€found€that€it€occurred€in€March€1993.€€There€was€no€testimonyÐ À! Ðwhich€established€the€date€upon€which€Weather€Shield€was€notified€of€the€alleged€defective€natureÐ °"  Ðof€its€product.Ð  #ð! ÐÌà  àIn€June€1996,€the€plaintiff€employed€Dan€Wilkins,€a€structural€engineer€from€Boulder,Ð €%Ð # ÐColorado,€to€assist€with€the€problems€she€was€having€at€her€residence.€€Wilkins€spent€a€substantialÐ p&À!$ Ðamount€of€time€investigating€the€matter€and€testified€at€the€trial€as€the€plaintiffððs€expert€witness€inÐ `'°"% Ðthis€regard.Ð P( #& ÐÌÐ  0*€%( Ðà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€trial€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€òòde€novoóóÐ à Ðupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.€Tenn.€R.Ð €Ð ÐApp.€P.€13(d),€ò òòòState€v.€Levandowskióóó ó,€955€S.W.2d€603,€604€(Tenn.€1997).Ð pÀ ÐÌà@ò ò ìàò òI.€€€Exclusion€by€Warranty€of€Consequential€Damagesó óˆÐ P   ÐÌà@ÇÇìàò òII.€Statute€of€Limitationsó óˆà È àà  àà x àÐ 0 € ÐÌà  àEach€Weather€Shield€window€delivered€to€the€site€where€the€plaintiffððs€house€was€beingÐ `  Ðconstructed€had€affixed€a€sticker€which€set€out€the€warranty:€Ð P  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€warranties€described€below€are€subject€to€the€limitations€andÐ à0  Ðrequirements€described€in€the€warranty€provisions€themselves€andÐ Ð  Ðunder€ð ðSpecific€Limitationsðð€and€ð ðGeneral€Provisions.ððÐÀ` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð àò òGENERAL€WARRANTY€(ONE€YEAR)ó óÐ  ð ÐÌÓ 0Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWeather€Shield€warrants€that€its€products€shall€be€free€from€defectsÐ €Ð Ðin€material€and€workmanship€for€a€period€of€ONE€(1)€YEAR€from€theÐ pÀ Ðdate€of€purchase.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð @ ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð àò òSPECIFIC€LIMITATIONSó óÐ  p ÐÓ²1Óà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àòòWeather€Shieldððs€Obligationóó.€€Except€as€otherwise€more€specificallyÐ ð@ Ðprovided€in€this€Limited€Warranty€and€Adjustment€Policy,€WeatherÐ à0 ÐShieldððs€obligation€under€this€Limited€Warranty€and€AdjustmentÐ Ð  ÐPolicy€shall€be€limited€to,€at€its€option€and€expense,€its€repair€of€orÐ À! Ðprovision€of€a€comparable€new€Weather€Shield€replacement€part€forÐ °"  Ðany€part€which€Weather€Shield€determines€to€be€covered€by€thisÐ  #ð! ÐLimited€Warranty€and€Adjustment€Policy.Ð$à"` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð p&À!$ ÐÌò òÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð àGENERAL€PROVISIONSó óÐ P( #& ÐÌÓ5Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHERE€ARE€NO€OTHER€WARRANTIES€EXCEPT€AS€SETÐ 0*€%( ÐFORTH€HEREIN.€ANY€WARRANTIES€OF€MERCHANTABILITYÐ  +p&) ÐOR€FITNESS€FOR€A€PARTICULAR€PURPOSE€ARE€LIMITED€INÐ ,`'* ÐDURATION€TO€THE€PERIOD€OF€COVERAGE€OF€THESEÐ ° ÐEXPRESS€WRITTEN€WARRANTIES.€WEATHER€SHIELDÐ  ð ÐSHALL€NOT€BE€LIABLE€FOR€APPLICABLE€TAXES€OR€ANYÐ à ÐINCIDENTAL€OR€CONSEQUENTIAL€DAMAGES€INCLUDING,Ð €Ð ÐBUT€NOT€LIMITED€TO,€DAMAGE€OR€LOSS€TO€PERSONS€ORÐ pÀ ÐOTHER€PROPERTY.€Some€states€do€not€allow€limitation€on€howÐ ` ° Ðlong€an€implied€warranty€lasts€and€some€states€do€not€allow€theÐ P   Ðexclusion€or€limitation€of€incidental€or€consequential€damages,€soÐ @  Ðthese€limitations€or€exclusions€may€not€apply€to€you.€TheseÐ 0 € Ðwarranties€give€you€specific€legal€rights,€and€you€may€also€have€otherÐ  p  Ðrights€which€vary€from€state€to€state.€NO€DISTRIBUTOR,Ð `  ÐSALESPERSON,€DEALER,€RETAILER€OR€OTHERÐ P  ÐREPRESENTATIVE€OF€WEATHER€SHIELD€HAS€THEÐ ð@  ÐAUTHORITY€TO€MAKE€WARRANTIES€OF€FITNESS€FOR€AÐ à0  ÐPARTICULAR€PURPOSE€OR€TO€ALTER€OR€CHANGE€THESEÐ Ð  ÐWARRANTIES€EITHER€ORALLY€OR€IN€WRITING.ÐÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTo€obtain€service€under€these€warranties,€contact€Weather€ShieldÐ  ð ÐMfg.,€Inc.,€P.O.€Box€309,€Medford,€WI€54451,€telephone€715„748„Ð à Ð2100,€giving€the€model€and€identification€numbers€of€the€product,€theÐ €Ð Ðdate€of€purchase€and€the€nature€of€the€claimed€defect€or€problem.€InÐ pÀ Ðaddition,€Weather€Shield€reserves€the€right€to€inspect,€or€designate€aÐ `° Ðperson€to€inspect,€any€part€that€is€claimed€to€be€defective€and€coveredÐ P  Ðby€these€warranties.Ð@` x` x ÐÒe°Ò.€Ð 0€ Ðà  àBased€upon€this€warranty,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€plaintiff€is€not€entitled€to€recover€anyÐ  p Ðdamages€because€of€the€plaintiffððs€alleged€failure€to€notify€the€defendant€of€the€defective€productÐ ` Ðwithin€one€year€of€the€date€of€sale.€€Additionally,€the€defendant€contends€that,€even€if€notice€wereÐ P Ðtimely,€the€plaintiffððs€recovery€cannot€include€consequential€damages€resulting€from€the€allegedlyÐ ð@ Ðdefective€windows.Ð à0 ÐÌà  àÔ‡X²;XXX²;Ô€€The€plaintiff€contends€that€timely€notice€was€given€of€the€defects€and€that€she€is€entitled€toÐ À! Ðconsequential€damages€because€the€contractual€exclusion€of€consequential€damages€wasÐ °"  Ðunconscionable.€€Additionally,€she€contends€that€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€transactionÐ  #ð! Ðcreated€unequal€bargaining€positions€of€the€parties.€€€Ð $à" ÐÌà  à€The€question€of€whether€terms€limiting€consequential€damages€should€be€judicially€enforcedÐ p&À!$ Ðis€a€question€of€€law.€€In€ò òòòMoore€v.€Howard€Pontiac„American,€Inc.,€óóó ó492€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð `'°"% Ð1972),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1973),€this€court€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€the€plaintiff€was€entitledÐ P( #& Ðto€the€remedy€of€a€rescission€of€a€contract€for€the€sale€of€an€automobile.€€We€addressed€the€ability€ofÐ @)$' Ða€party€to€limit€remedies€in€a€contract€stating:Ð 0*€%( Ðâ âÐ  +p&) Ðà8  àà8` !!à€€€€€€The€seller€of€personal€property€may€specifically€limit€the€buyer'sÐ ° Ðâ âremedies€for€breach€of€warranty€to€the€repair€and€replacement€ofÐ  ð Ðnon-conforming€goods€or€parts€by€the€seller;€however,€where€theÐ à Ðcircumstances€cause€such€a€limited€remedy€to€fail€of€its€essentialÐ €Ð Ðpurpose,€the€buyer€no€longer€is€limited€to€the€remedy€provided€in€theÐ pÀ Ðagreement€but€has€available€the€remedies€provided€by€the€UniformÐ ` ° ÐCommercial€Code.€€See€€T.C.A.€47-2-719(1)(a),€(2)€and€(3).€€òòò òSee€also€ó óóóÐ P   Ð17€A.L.R.2d€1010€et€seq.Ð@ ` Ã` à ÐÌòòò ò€Moore€v.€Howard€Pontiac-American,€Inc.ó óóó,€492€S.W.2d€at€229.Ð  p  ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€foregoing,€the€full€range€of€remedies€under€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code,Ð P  Ðas€adopted€by€Tennessee,€would€be€available€where€a€warranty€failed€of€its€essential€purpose€pursuantÐ ð@  Ðto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„2„719(1)(a),€(2)€and€(3).€€However,€the€interpretation€of€ðð€47„2„719€(2)€andÐ à0  Ð(3)€has€received€specific€attention.€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àSection€47„2„719€provides:€Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à(1)€Subject€to€the€provisions€of€subsections€(2)€and€(3)€of€this€sectionÐ à Ðand€of€the€preceding€section€on€liquidation€and€limitation€of€damages:ЀÐ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àà8× ` Ã` Ãà(a)€the€agreement€may€provide€for€remedies€in€addition€to€orÐ `° Ðin€substitution€for€those€provided€in€this€chapter€and€mayÐ P  Ðlimit€or€alter€the€measure€of€damages€recoverable€under€thisÐ @ Ðchapter,€as€by€limiting€the€buyer's€remedies€to€return€of€theÐ 0€ Ðgoods€and€repayment€of€the€price€or€to€repair€andÐ  p Ðreplacement€of€nonconforming€goods€or€parts;€€andÐ`× L× L ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àà8× ` Ã` Ãà(b)€resort€to€a€remedy€as€provided€is€optional€unless€theÐ ð@ Ðremedy€is€expressly€agreed€to€be€exclusive,€in€which€case€itÐ à0 Ðis€the€sole€remedy.€€ÐÐ × L× L ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à(2)€Where€circumstances€cause€an€exclusive€or€limited€remedy€to€failÐ °"  Ðof€its€essential€purpose,€remedy€may€be€had€as€provided€in€chapters€1„Ð  #ð! Ð9€of€this€title.€€Ð$à"` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à(3)€Consequential€damages€may€be€limited€or€excluded€unless€theÐ p&À!$ Ðlimitation€or€exclusion€is€unconscionable.€€Limitation€of€consequentialÐ `'°"% Ðdamages€for€injury€to€the€person€in€the€case€of€consumer€goods€isÐ P( #& Ðprima€facie€unconscionable€but€limitation€of€damages€where€the€lossÐ @)$' Ðis€commercial€is€not.€€Ð0*€%(` Ã` à Ðâ âÐ  +p&) Ðà  àThere€has€been€a€distinction€made€by€Tennessee€courts€between€a€warranty€failing€of€itsÐ ° Ðâ âessential€purpose,€and€a€term€excluding€consequential€damages€being€unconscionable.€€Notes€to€Ð  ð ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„2„719€(3)€cite€ò òòòAquascene,€Inc.€v.€Noritsu€Am.€Corp,€óóó ó831€F.€Supp.Ð à Ð602€(M.D.€Tenn.€1993),€for€the€proposition€that€ð ð[a]€consequential€damages€exclusion€is€waived€onlyÐ €Ð Ðif€the€exclusion€was€itself€unconscionable;€a€finding€that€a€warranty€failed€of€its€essential€purposeÐ pÀ Ðwould€not€automatically€waive€a€consequential€damages€exclusion.ððÐ ` ° ÐÌà  à€ò òòòAquascene,€Inc.€v.€Noritsu€Am.€Corp,€supra,óóó ó€addressed€the€issue€of€the€relationship€betweenÐ @  Ðsubsections€(2)€and€(3)€of€ðð€47„2„719.€€€In€€ò òòòAquascene,€óóó óthe€plaintiffò òòòóóó ó€brought€a€products€liability€actionÐ 0 € Ðagainst€a€photographic€minilab€alleging€that€the€limited€warranty€provided€by€the€defendant€failedÐ  p  Ðof€its€essential€purpose,€and€that€breach€of€warranty€and€consequential€damages€were€thereforeÐ `  Ðrecoverable.€€In€deciding€this€issue,€the€€òòò òAquasceneóóó ó€Court€looked€to€the€Sixth€Circuit€case€ò òòòLewisÐ P  ÐRefrigeration€Co.€v.€Sawyer€Fruit,€Vegetable€&€Cold€Storageóóó ó,€709€F.2d€427€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1983)€forÐ ð@  Ðguidance.€ò òòòóóó ó€That€Court€anticipated€how€the€Washington€Supreme€Court€would€handle€theÐ à0  Ðinterpretation€of€those€subsections.€€After€an€analysis€of€legislative€intent€and€the€rules€of€statutoryÐ Ð  Ðconstruction,€the€ò òòòLewis€Refrigeration€óóó óCourt€concluded€that€Washington€courts€would€hold€that€inÐ À Ðorder€for€a€consequential€damages€exclusion€to€be€waived,€the€exclusion€itself€must€be€foundÐ ° Ðunconscionable.€€ò òòòAquascene,€óóó ó831€F.€Supp.€at€604.€€€Thus,€a€finding€that€the€warranty€has€failed€of€itsÐ  ð Ðessential€purpose€does€not€automatically€waive€an€exclusion€of€€consequential€damages.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óThe€Ð à Ðò òòòAquasceneóóó ó€Court€followed€the€reasoning€of€the€òòò òLewis€Refrigeration€óóó óCourt€and€held€that€ð ðtheÐ €Ð ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€is€likely€to€interpret€subsections€(2)€and€(3)€of€section€47„2„719Ð pÀ Ðindependently.ðð€€€ò òòòId.€€óóó ó€€€€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àò òòòóóó óAccordingly,€a€plaintiff€seeking€to€show€waiver€of€an€exclusion€of€consequential€damagesÐ @ Ðmust€prove€that€the€exclusion€itself€is€unconscionable.€ò òòò€Idóóó ó.€at€605€(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„2„Ð 0€ Ð719(3)).Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` !!à€Whether€a€contract€term€is€unconscionable€is€a€question€of€law,€andÐ P Ða€presumption€of€permissible€dealings€exists€between€commercialÐ ð@ Ðparties.òòò ò€See€Lewis€Refrigeration,ó óóó€709€F.2d€at€435€&€n.€12.€UnderÐ à0 ÐTennessee€law,€a€contract€term€is€unconscionable€only€when€theÐ Ð  Ðinequality€of€the€bargain€is€so€manifest€as€to€shock€the€judgment€of€aÐ À! Ðperson€of€common€sense,€and€where€the€terms€are€so€repressive€that€noÐ °"  Ðreasonable€person€would€make€them€on€the€one€hand,€and€no€honestÐ  #ð! Ðand€fair€person€would€accept€them€on€the€other.€€ò òòòHaun€v.€King,óóó ó€690Ð $à" ÐS.W.2d€869,€872€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1984)€(citations€omitted).€Ð€%Ð #` Ã` à ÐÌò òòòAquascene,€óóó ó831€F.€Supp.€at€605.€€The€Court€held€that€the€defendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgmentÐ `'°"% Ðshould€have€been€granted€on€the€issue€of€consequential€damages,€as€the€damage€exclusion€was€notÐ P( #& Ðunconscionable.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óIn€so€holding,€the€Court€reasoned€that€the€plaintiff€had€not€rebutted€theÐ @)$' Ðdefendantððs€proof€on€summary€judgment€that€the€bargaining€between€the€parties€was€relatively€equalÐ 0*€%( Ðand€fair,€and€found€that€both€parties€were€sophisticated€and€intelligent.€€€ò òòòId.€€óóó ó€Ð  +p&) ÐÐ ,`'* Ðà  àIn€ò òòòArcata€Graphics€Co.€v.€Heidelberg€Harris,€Inc.,€óóó ó874€S.W.2d€15,€29€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993),Ð ° Ðò òòòperm.€appeal€deniedó óóó€(Tenn.€1994),òò€óóthis€court€clarified€the€concern€of€U.C.C.€ðð€2„719(2),€permittingÐ  ð Ðcontractual€limitation€of€remedies€and€codified€in€Tennessee€as€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„2„Ð à Ð719(2).€€€The€plaintiff€in€that€case€argued€that€the€limitation€on€remedies€failed€of€its€essentialÐ €Ð Ðpurpose,€thereby€entitling€him€to€remedies€sought€under€breach€of€contract€and/or€warranty.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€TheÐ pÀ Ðcourt€stated€that€in€order€for€the€plaintiff€to€be€entitled€to€the€remedy€sought€for€breach€of€contractÐ ` ° Ðand/or€warranty,€he€must€qualify€under€the€exception€to€the€general€rule€that€parties€may€limitÐ P   Ðcontractual€remedies.€€This€courtòòò òóóó ó€disallowed€the€plaintiff€to€utilize€the€exception€allowed€pursuant€toÐ @  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„1„719,€explaining:€€Ð 0 € ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àU.C.C.€ðð€2-719(2)€provides€that€"an€exception€arises€whenÐ `  Ðcircumstances€cause€an€exclusive€or€limited€remedy€to€fail€of€itsÐ P  Ðessential€purpose."€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47-2-719(2).Ðð@ ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àà × àHere,€Hawkins€has€argued€a€failure€of€essential€purpose.€€Ð Ð  ÐHowever,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€this€argument€is€without€merit€inÐ À Ðview€of€the€adequate€remedy€provided€in€the€contract,€and€offered€byÐ ° ÐHarris,€which€allowed€Hawkins€to€receive€at€no€cost€the€type€ofÐ  ð Ðdampening€system€it€desired€or€to€return€the€presses€and€receive€aÐ à Ðrefund€of€the€purchase€price.€€€These€are€fair€and€adequate€remediesÐ €Ð Ðand€were€never€invoked€by€Hawkins.€€€The€contractual€remedy€did€notÐ pÀ Ðfail€as€a€matter€of€law.€€€U.C.C.€ðð€2-719,€per€comment€1,€requires€onlyÐ `° Ða€"minimum€adequate€remed[y]."€€Section€2-719(2)€is€concerned€withÐ P  Ðthe€essential€purpose€of€the€remedy€chosen€by€the€parties,€not€with€theÐ @ Ðessential€purpose€of€the€code€or€of€contract€law,€or€of€justice€and/orÐ 0€ Ðequity.€€€1€White€and€Summers,€òòUniform€Commercial€Codeóó€ðð€12-10Ð  p Ð(3d€ed.€1988).€€€U.C.C.€ðð€2-719(2)€is€concerned€only€with€novelÐ ` Ðcircumstances€not€contemplated€by€the€parties€and€does€notÐ P Ðcontemplate€agreements€arguably€oppressive€at€their€inception.€€òòò ò€Id.Ðð@` Ã` à ÐÌArcata€Graphicsó óóó,€òòò òóóó ó874€S.W.2d€at€29.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIt€does€not€appear€that€Weather€Shieldððs€warranty,€limiting€remedies€to€ð ðrepair€of€or€provisionÐ °"  Ðof€a€comparable€new€Weather€Shield€replacement€partðð€fails€of€its€essential€purpose€as€a€matter€ofÐ  #ð! Ðlaw.€€Even€if€there€were€a€showing€that€Weather€Shieldððs€contractual€replacement€€remedy€failed€ofÐ $à" Ðits€essential€purpose,€that€would€not€automatically€waive€the€consequential€damages€exclusion.€€InÐ €%Ð # Ðorder€to€be€waived,€the€exclusion€of€consequential€damages€must€be€shown€to€be€unconscionable€inÐ p&À!$ Ðand€of€itself.€€The€facts€of€this€case€do€not€indicate€that€the€contractual€term€is€unconscionable€as€aÐ `'°"% Ðmatter€of€law€pursuant€to€the€definition€set€forth€in€òòò òHaun€v.€King,ó óóó€ò òòòsupra.óóó ó€€Additionally,€we€note€thatÐ P( #& Ðthe€defendantððs€products€were€selected€by€Francis€Mah,€an€architect€of€long€and€substantialÐ ° Ðexperience.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€limitations€of€the€Weather€Shield€warranty€are€effective€toÐ  ð Ðexclude€liability€for€consequential€damages.€We€will€next€consider€whether€notice€was€given€toÐ à ÐWeather€Shield€of€the€alleged€defects€within€the€limitations€period€established€by€the€Weather€ShieldÐ €Ð Ðwarranty.Ô#†X²;XXX²;?#ÔÔ‡X! XXX²;ÔÐ pÀ Ðò òó óÌà  àRegarding€the€defense€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€notify€the€defendant€of€the€allegedly€defectiveÐ L œ Ðwindows€before€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€the€trial€court€orally€ruled:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àThe€first€issue€to€be€resolved€by€the€Court€is€whether€the€plaintiffððsÐ  `  Ðaction€for€a€breach€of€warranty€is€barred€by€the€one€year€limitedÐ ü L  Ðwarranty€provision€or€the€statute€of€limitations.€This€Court€concludesÐ è8  Ðthat€it€is€not€barred.€Exhibit€Number€10,€being€the€invoice€from€theÐ Ô$  ÐSchaefer€Sash€And€Door€Company€to€the€Walton€Watson€ConstructionÐ À  ÐCompany€regarding€the€windows€and€doors€in€question,€shows€that€theÐ ¬ü  Ðsaid€items€were€ordered€apparently€by€the€contractor€on€December€theÐ ˜è  Ð6th€of€ðð91€and€was€shipped€to€the€contractor€or€the€site€on€January€theÐ „Ô Ð29th,€1992.ÐpÀ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àThe€defendant€in€its€memo€claims€that€January€the€8th€of€ðð92€whenÐ H˜ ÐWeathershield€[sic]€apparently€delivered€the€items€to€Schaefer,€whichÐ 4„ Ðis€referenced€in€Exhibit€Number€30,€was€or€should€have€been€the€startÐ  p Ðdate€for€the€running€of€the€warranty.€€This€Court€disagrees.Ð \` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àThis€Court€is€of€the€opinion€and€so€holds€that€Schaefer€Sash€And€DoorÐ ä4 ÐCompany€was€the€distributor€for€and€the€agent€of€the€defendantÐ Ð  ÐWeathershield€[sic]€Manufacturing€Company€and€that€Walton€WatsonÐ ¼  ÐConstruction€Company€and€Francis€Mah€were€agents€of€the€plaintiff,Ð ¨ø ÐMs.€Shepherd,€in€connection€with€the€purchase€of€said€windows€andÐ ”ä Ðany€notice€requirements€flowing€therefrom.ЀÐ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àUnder€the€Weathershield€[sic]€limited€warranty€and€adjustment€policy,Ð X!¨ Ðwhich€is€marked€as€Exhibit€Number€3,€I€believe,€it€states€that€theÐ D"”  ÐWeathershield€[sic]€ð!ð€that€Weathershield€[sic]€warrants€that€itsÐ 0#€! Ðproducts€shall€be€free€from€defects€in€material€and€workmanship€forÐ $l" Ða€period€of€one€year€from€the€date€of€purchase.€€One€year€from€JanuaryÐ %X # Ðthe€29th€of€ðð92€would€have€been€January€the€29th€of€ðð93.Ðô%D!$` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àMr.€Jim€Watson€testified€that€the€notice€of€leaking€and€water€problemsÐ Ì'#& Ðwith€the€windows€and€doors€were€given€to€the€defendantÐ ¸($' ÐWeathershield€[sic]€within€the€one€year€period.€There€is€also€in€theÐ ¤)ô$( Ðrecord€that€Mr.€Joseph€Downing€apparently€in€the€field€engineeringÐ *à%) Ðdivision€of€Weathershield€[sic]€Corporation€wrote€a€letter€dated€MarchÐ |+Ì&* Ðthe€22nd,€1993€to€Watson€Construction€Company€regarding€the€waterÐ ° Ðleakage€in€the€plaintiffððs€home€which€means€that€advance€notice€priorÐ œì Ðto€that€date€had€to€have€been€received€„„€had€to€have€been€given€to€andÐ ˆØ Ðreceived€by€Weathershield€[sic].€€Nowhere€in€the€said€letter€or€in€otherÐ tÄ Ðcontacts€with€the€Walton€Watson€Construction€Company€or€with€Mr.Ð `° ÐMah€or€with€Mr.€Dan€Wilkins€prior€to€1998€did€Weathershield€[sic]Ð L œ Ðever€raise€the€issue€of€no€proper€notice€within€the€one€year€period€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðtime;€therefore,€there€is€support€in€the€record€that€proper€notice€wasÐ $ t Ðgiven€by€[sic]€Weathershield€[sic]€by€the€plaintiffððs€agents€within€theÐ  ` Ðone€year€period.Ðü L ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àThis€lawsuit€was€filed€by€the€plaintiff€on€November€the€22nd,€1995.Ð Ô$  ÐThe€items€were€purchased€by€the€defendant€on€January€the€29th€of€ðð92.Ð À  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€47„2„725€provides€that€an€actionÐ ¬ü  Ðfor€the€breach€of€any€contract€for€sale,€being€the€sale€of€goods,€must€beÐ ˜è  Ðcommenced€within€four€years€after€the€cause€of€action€has€accrued.Ð „Ô  ÐClearly€the€plaintiffððs€filing€date€was€within€this€period€of€time.€ÐpÀ` Ã` à ÐÌà  àAlthough€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€record€shows€that€the€Weather€Shield€one„yearÐ H˜ Ðlimited€warranty€began€running€on€January€29,€1992,€the€date€of€the€purchase,€and€expired€on€JanuaryÐ 4„ Ð29,€1993,€we€disagree€that€the€record€demonstrates€that€Weather€Shield€received€timely€notice€of€theÐ  p Ðalleged€defect.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àRegarding€the€giving€of€notice€to€Weather€Shield,€Jim€Watson€testified:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àQ.à × àYou€just€testified€a€moment€ago€that€Walton€Watson€ConstructionÐ ¼  ÐCompany€gave€notification€to€Weathershield€[sic]€prior€to€NovemberÐ ¨ø Ð26,€1992,€regarding€the€window€leaking€problems.€How€was€thatÐ ”ä Ðnotification€made?ЀÐ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àA.à × àAs€best€I€remember,€we€had€a€couple€of€conversations€withÐ X ¨ ÐSchaefer€Sash€and€door€[sic].€€I€think€we€met€on€the€site€once.€TheyÐ D!” Ðput€us€in€touch€with€some€representatives€from€Weathershield€[sic],Ð 0"€  Ðand€we€had€a€couple€of€phone€conversations.€€And€at€a€later€date€twoÐ #l! Ðof€the€Weathershield€[sic]€engineers,€reps,€came€down€from€the€plantÐ $X" Ðand€met€with€us€on€the€site.€Ðô$D #` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àQ.à × àDo€you€happen€to€recall€their€names?ÐÌ&"%` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àA.à × àNo,€I€do€not.Ф(ô#'` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àQ.à × àWhat€happened€at€the€site€during€the€meeting€or€meetings?Ð|*Ì%)` Ã` à ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` !!àA.à × àWe€met€on€the€front€street,€Magnolia€Drive,€introduced€eachÐ ° Ðother,€and€we€went€in€the€house.€We€looked€at€some€windows€andÐ œì Ðsliding€doors.€€We€looked€at€certain€aspects€of€the€overall€window€andÐ ˆØ Ðhow€it€related€to€the€interior€drywall€finish€and€the€stucco€outside.ÐtÄ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àAnd€then€we€went€back€outside,€and€we€were€asked€if€there€had€beenÐ L œ Ðany€flashing€or€felt€put€on€the€sheathing.€Our€answer€was€no.€One€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€two€reps€from€Weathershield€[sic]€said€something€to€the€effectÐ $ t Ðð ðWe€canððt€help€you.ðð€This€part€of€the€meeting€is€vivid€because€at€thatÐ  ` Ðtime€Mr.€Mah€spun€on€his€heels,€got€in€his€car,€and€left€the€siteÐ ü L  Ðimmediately.Ðè 8 ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àQ.à × àAll€of€this€took€place€before€November€26,€1992?ÐÀ ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àA.à × àWell,€it€took€place€after€„„€I€donððt€remember€the€date,€but€it€tookÐ ˜è  Ðplace€after€a€letter€from€myself€and€two€or€three€phone€calls€withÐ „Ô  ÐSchaefer€and€a€few€phone€calls€with€the€plant€where€WeathershieldÐ pÀ Ð[sic]€is€made.Ð\¬` Ã` à ÐÌà  àWatson€also€testified€that,€in€his€opinion,€the€leaking€problems€did€not€result€from€the€WeatherÐ 4„ ÐShield€windows.€€He€stated€ð ð[t]hose€[Weather€Shield]€windows€didnððt€cause€the€defects€in€the€house.€Ð  p ÐTheyððre€on€a€par€with€Marvin,€Pella,€Anderson.€€The€same€thing€would€have€happened€with€thoseÐ  \ Ðwindows.ððò òó óÐ øH ÐÌà  àRegardless€of€the€accuracy€of€Watsonððs€belief€that€the€leaking€problems€were€not€caused€byÐ Ð  Ðthe€defendantððs€windows,€it€appears€highly€unlikely€that€he€would€have€advised€Schaefer€or€WeatherÐ ¼  ÐShield€that€its€windows€were€defective€when€he€did€not€believe€this€to€be€the€case.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThis€is€the€plaintiffððs€proof€both€as€to€the€timing€of€notice€to€the€defendant€regarding€theÐ €Ð Ðalleged€defective€product,€as€well€as€the€content€of€that€notice.€€The€plaintiff€has€failed€to€show€thatÐ l¼ ÐWeather€Shield€was€given€notice€at€its€location€in€Medford,€Wisconsin,€of€the€alleged€defectiveÐ X ¨ Ðproduct,€as€was€required€by€the€warranty.€€In€fact,€the€plaintiff€did€not€show€when,€how,€or€by€whomÐ D!” ÐWeather€Shield€was€notified€or€the€contents€of€that€notice.€€Even€if€the€plaintiff€could€have€shown€thatÐ 0"€  Ðshe€contacted€Weather€Shield€within€the€notice€€period,€it€appears€from€the€testimony€of€Watson€thatÐ #l! Ðthe€contact€was€to€seek€advice€about€leaks€in€the€house,€not€to€complain€about€rotting€of€WeatherÐ $X" ÐShield€windows.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiff€has€contended€that€ð ðnotice€to€Schaefer€was€the€same€as€notice€to€Weather€ShieldððÐ Ì&"% Ðò òó óand€that€both€received€notice€within€limitations€period€of€the€alleged€defects.€€We€have€alreadyÐ ¸'#& Ðconcluded€that€there€is€no€proof€that€Weather€Shield€received€timely€notice,€and€the€record€is€equallyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdeficient€as€to€the€giving€of€timely€notice€to€Schaefer.€€Even€if€we€were€to€find€that€Schaefer€hadÐ )à$( Ðreceived€timely€notice,€the€nature€of€which€was€adequate€under€the€warranty€to€establish€a€claim,€the€Ð  |*Ì%) Ðplaintiff€would€still€not€prevail€as€to€this€issue.€€Although€the€trial€court€held€that€Schaefer€was€theÐ ° Ðð ðagentðð€of€Weather€Shield,€we€conclude€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€to€establish€that€Schaefer€wasÐ œì Ðauthorized€to€receive€warranty€claims€on€Weather€Shield€products.€€Rather,€the€Weather€ShieldÐ ˆØ Ðwarranty€clearly€requires€that€it€must€be€notified€at€its€Medford,€Wisconsin,€location€of€warrantyÐ tÄ Ðclaims.Ð `° ÐÌà  àNo€witness€from€Schaefer€Sash€and€Door€testified€during€the€trial€of€this€matter,€and€the€proofÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€very€sketchy€as€to€the€nature€of€the€relationship€between€Schaefer€and€Weather€Shield.€€TheÐ $ t Ðplaintiff€had€the€burden€of€proof€to€establish€that€Schaefer€had€the€authority€to€accept€claims€ofÐ  ` Ðdefective€products€on€behalf€of€Weather€Shield:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àThe€burden€of€proving€an€agency€relationship€falls€on€the€personÐ Ô$  Ðalleging€its€existence,€and€the€scope€and€extent€of€an€agentððs€real€andÐ À  Ðapparent€authority€are€questions€to€be€determined€by€the€trier€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðfact€from€all€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€introduced€as€evidence.€Ð ˜è  ÐòòSloan€v.€Hallóó,€673€S.W.2d€548€(Tenn.€App.€1984).Ð„Ô ` Ã` à ÐÌò òòòSouthland€Express,€Inc.€v.€Scrap€Metal€Buyers€of€Tampa,€Inc.ó óóó,€895€S.W.2d€335,€340€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð \¬ ÐApp.€1994),òòò ò€perm.€appeal€deniedó óóó€(Tenn.€1995).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àTherefore,€even€if€the€plaintiff€had€proven€that€timely€and€legally€sufficient€notice€of€aÐ  p Ðwarranty€claim€was€given€to€Schaefer,€the€plaintiffððs€proof€would€still€be€insufficient€because€of€theÐ  \ Ðlack€of€proof€that€Schaefer€had€authority€to€accept€such€a€claim€on€behalf€of€Weather€Shield.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThus,€based€upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€prove€thatÐ Ð  ÐWeather€Shield€was€notified€of€its€allegedly€defective€windows€and€doors€within€one€year€of€the€dateÐ ¼  Ðof€purchase,€as€required€€by€the€terms€of€the€warranty.€€As€a€result,€the€plaintiffððs€claim€againstÐ ¨ø ÐWeather€Shield€is€barred€for€failure€to€give€notice€of€the€alleged€defects€prior€to€expiration€of€theÐ ”ä Ðnotification€period€established€by€the€Weather€Shield€limited€warranty.€€Accordingly,€this€matter€isÐ €Ð Ðremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€dismissal€as€to€those€claims.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€view€€of€our€finding€that€the€plaintiffððs€claim€is€barred€because€the€defendant€was€not€givenÐ D!” Ðnotice€of€the€alleged€defects€within€one€year€of€the€date€of€sale,€the€remaining€issues€raised€by€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€are€pretermitted.Ð #l! ÐÌà@  àò òPlaintiffððs€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€Claimsó óˆÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àAs€an€issue€on€appeal,€the€plaintiff€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€recoveryÐ Ì&"% Ðpursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€47„18„101,€et€seq.Ð ¸'#& ÐRegarding€this€claim,€the€trial€court€orally€ruled:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àThe€next€question€to€be€resolved€by€the€Court€is€what€damages€are€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðplaintiff€entitled€to€as€a€result€of€the€purchase€and€installation€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðdefective€Weathershield€[sic]€windows€and€doors.€But€before€weÐ ° Ðanswer€that€question,€it€is€necessary€to€deal€with€the€plaintiffððsÐ œì Ðcontention€that€Weathershield€[sic]€violated€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÐ ˆØ ÐProtection€Act€of€1977€and€should€be€entitled€to€treble€damages€plusÐ tÄ Ðattorney€fees.Ð`°` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àThis€Court€is€of€the€opinion€and€so€holds€that€the€proof€and€evidenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€insufficient€to€establish€that€the€defendant€Weathershield€[sic]Ð $ t Ðengaged€in€certain€unfair€deceptive€acts€or€unlawful€practices€whichÐ  ` Ðwould€constitute€a€violation€under€Tennessee€Code€47„18„104€(B)€inÐ ü L  Ðconnection€with€the€sale€of€said€windows€and€doors.€€The€proof€doesÐ è 8  Ðnot€show€the€extent€or€the€prior€knowledge€of€the€defendantÐ Ô$  ÐWeathershield€[sic]€as€to€the€defective€design€and€construction€of€theirÐ À  Ðproducts€where€they€met€ð!ð€apparently€met€industry€standards€in€pastÐ ¬ü  Ðlaboratory€tests.€The€Admiralty€Condominium€case€in€1989€in€PortÐ ˜è  ÐClinton,€Ohio,€which€was€cited€by€Mr.€Wilkins€and€plaintiffððs€attorneyÐ „Ô  Ðonly€showed€that€the€same€types€of€windows€and€doors€were€involvedÐ pÀ Ðin€that€proceeding€and€that€Mr.€Wilkins€faulted€the€design€andÐ \¬ Ðmanufacture€in€his€conversations€with€a€Mr.€Lemke€who€was€aÐ H˜ ÐWeathershield€[sic]€representative.Ð4„` Ã` à ÐÌà  àThe€basis€for€the€plaintiffððs€Consumer€Protection€Act€claim€is€the€alleged€fact€that€WeatherÐ  \ ÐShield€had€known€since€1989€that€windows€of€the€same€type€sold€to€her€were€defective.€As€proof€ofÐ øH Ðthis€contention,€the€€plaintiff€cites€the€testimony€of€Dan€Wilkins€regarding€his€knowledge€of€a€projectÐ ä4 Ðin€Port€Clinton,€Ohio,€for€€which€he€had€been€hired€as€an€expert€in€1989.€€However,€the€proof€is€sparseÐ Ð  Ðregarding€this€project€and€the€basis€for€linking€the€1989€Ohio€project€and€the€construction€of€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiffððs€house.€€Regarding€the€Ohio€project,€Mr.€Wilkins€testified:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àQ€.à × àWhat€did€that€investigation€reveal?ЀÐ` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àA.à × àThat€the€windows€had€a€glazing€detail€comprised€of€an€interiorÐ X ¨ Ðplastic€or€vinyl€receiver€at€the€wood€stop€and€the€exterior€snap„in€metalÐ D!” Ðglazing€bead€very€similar€to€what€I€described€for€Cybil€[sic]Ð 0"€  ÐShepherdððs€€house.Ð#l!` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àQ.à × àWhat€was€the€effect€of€those€details€back€in€ðð89,€on€the€problemÐ ô$D # Ðback€in€ðð89?Ðà%0!$` Ã` à ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àA.à × àEssentially,€as€Iððve€described€today,€they€let€water€in€and€trappedÐ ¸'#& Ðwater€against€wood€and€the€wood€rotted.Ф(ô#'` Ã` à Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà8  àà8` !!àQ.à × àAnd€in€your€expert€opinion€is€there€any€difference€in€those€detailsÐ ° Ðthat€you€discovered€in€1989€as€opposed€to€the€details€in€the€windowÐ œì Ðand€door€design€in€this€litigation?ЈØ` Ã` à Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` !!àA.à × àFunctionally,€theyððre€identical.Ð`°` Ã` à ÐÌÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€this€and€related€testimony€of€Mr.€Wilkins€is€insufficient€toÐ $ t Ðestablish€a€claim€that€Weather€Shield€had€prior€knowledge€that€the€products€installed€in€the€plaintiffððsÐ  ` Ðhouse€were€defective.€€Accordingly,€we€concur€with€the€trial€courtððs€denying€the€plaintiff€reliefÐ ü L  Ðpursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.Ð è 8  ÐÌà@kk%àò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€our€review,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€state€aÐ ˜è  Ðclaim€against€the€defendant€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€We€reverse€theÐ „Ô  Ðfinding€of€the€trial€court€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€recover€damages€against€Weather€Shield€andÐ pÀ Ðremand€for€the€dismissal€of€those€claims.€Ô#†X²;X XX!aq#Ô€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€plaintiff,€Ô_ÔCybillÔ_ÔÐ \¬ ÐShepherd.Ð \¬ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà × àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  \ Ðà  àà ` àà × àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€SPECIAL€JUDGE