ÿWPC‚[ +Õ“Þ;¦»ª¼£°Ê=»vÇ9B²YÈû±Ø­=9ÜÖ9ä†tý¢çqÉ,ýD¥P¾:“µÈN©VØ!»¸à°b'©Ø.U[W S#ÆÓÜðµV¿|ñ¹®vÈÙ%Dn©WTÁøVp§tã8¡=•fݪÓúfKç€]Ú’Úë÷1hyÔ¼ xÒj‚PoýÊ· ªôd.>’Õ·—†1RÀBscáK¬çxÐKhl©Ûå¤ñœ¨ÙLã3©…u“ÁwÔ&»0Æ_™.¨*`ùðµA;<‹ÚµÁ†½ÎóT>´‚§Ö«)3þëRàÕ´|5Ïz”JinrÅ«/œáv}‘³ÚÜ`Lé5£Œ²v˧QÑhøc\uyÓVg1WÆ2é¾?4!âðYË|ÚC'& ªßs,å´d¼PÛs ðI_;~ýÎ1ño¿rOt>Xi%ñ‹^§zÏÿµ<Àa#ÁNU4: %I 0O wU 4Y m | b„ 2Œ b¾ 0DÆ õ äÿU:ãá. þ,'’.'HÀ( m*—**µ¶2ïk8k8eZ<A¿A¿A¿ACÇDD\WSU:³T³T³T³T³T BíTíTíTíTíTíTíTíTíTíTíTíTíTíTíTb U U 0|UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNŽWŽWnW ASþXÆQY 0VZ 0VmZ 0DÃZU:[ D5A[^ v[˜HP LaserJet 4Si,ü,,,,,ü0, øð AZ"Arial RegularX(ÞDz$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€K<XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTRY3Ø' LetterY3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letter 3Ø' LetterTÑÁ„'3|x- ù- (Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€indicates€that€the€terms€ð ðintentional€misrepresentation,ðð€ð ðfraudulentÐ ,  Ðmisrepresentationðð€and€ð ðfraudðð€were€used€interchangeably€by€the€court€and€parties€in€referring€to€thisÐ ô È Ðcause€of€action.€€Because€these€terms€are€synonymous,€we€will€refer€to€this€claim€as€intentionalÐ ¼  Ðmisrepresentation.€- ù-(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ëÝ ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôØÚòòô‹mÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€49.01€permits€trial€courts€to€require€the€use€of€a€special€verdict€formÐ ,  Ðcomprised€of€detailed€factual€questions€for€the€jury.€€Special€verdicts€elicit€specific€findings€from€the€juryÐ ê ¾ Ðthat€cover€every€factual€issue€raised€by€the€pleadings€and€evidence,€including€responses€to€eachÐ ¨ | Ðelement€of€the€common€law€claims€plead.€€These€responses€enable€the€trial€court€to€articulate€aÐ f : Ðjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€Ô‡X¹XòôØÚÔ€Ô#†XrÊXXX¹¯#ÔÔ#†ô‹mòXXrÊÄ#ÔÔ‡#ôØÚòòô‹mÔMore€common€than€special€verdicts,€general€verdicts€accompanied€byÐ $ ø Ðspecial€interrogatories€are€permitted€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€49.02.€General€verdicts€and€interrogatories,Ð  Þ Ðwhich€are€usually€more€concise€than€special€verdicts,€call€upon€the€jury€to€render€a€general€finding€ofÐ Èœ Ðliability€and€also€require€the€jury€to€answer€certain€key€questions€that€clarify€the€basis€for€the€finding€ofÐ †Z Ðliability€and€that€are€ð ðnecessary€to€a€verdict.ðð€€The€purpose€of€the€interrogatories€is€to€test€the€validityÐ D Ðand€consistency€of€the€general€verdict.€Ô#†ô‹mòò#ôØÚ*#Ô ÚÝ ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSee,€e.g.òòóó,€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„50„603€(1993)€(employee€is€entitled€to€treble€damages€andÐ ,  Ðattorneys€fees€if€employer€disciplined€or€threatened€to€discipline€or€otherwise€interfered€with€employeeððsÐ ô È Ðright€to€communicate€with€an€elected€official);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€46„2„411(Supp.€1998)€(court€shallÐ ¼  Ðaward€treble€damages€when€a€prevailing€party€proves€fraud€relative€to€a€sales€contract€for€cemeteryÐ „ X Ðmerchandise€and€services);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„29„101(d)€(Supp.€1998)€(court€shall€award€asÐ L  Ðdamages€treble€the€face€amount€of€a€check€or€draft€when€person€who€executed€and€delivered€theÐ è Ðcheck€possessed€fraudulent€intent€in€not€paying€the€holder€the€full€amount€within€30€days);€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ü° ÐAnn.€ðð€48„101„520(b)(1)€(1995)€(court€may€award€treble€damages€if€defendantððs€use€of€an€unfair,€falseÐ ¤x Ðor€misleading€solicitation€of€charitable€funds€was€willful€or€knowing);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€62„37„105(e)Ð l@ Ð(1990)€(one€who€engages€in€the€construction€or€home€improvementò òÔ‡XrÊXòô‹mÔ€Ô#†ô‹mòXXrÊ@#Ôó óbusiness€without€a€license€mayÐ 4  Ðbe€subject€to€treble€damages).€€€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ×Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3)€(1995)€provides€that€the€trial€court€may€award€three€timesÐ ,  Ðthe€amount€of€actual€damages€sustained€if€it€finds€that€the€defendantððs€use€of€the€unfair€or€deceptiveÐ ô È Ðact€or€practice€under€the€Act€was€willful€or€knowing.€€ $ Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝSome€courts€have€interpreted€a€statute€declaring€itself€to€be€a€non„exclusive€remedy€to€entitleÐ ,  Ðplaintiffs€to€recover€both€treble€damages€under€the€statute€and€punitive€damages€pursuant€to€a€commonÐ ô È Ðlaw€claim€in€a€single€action.€€òòSee,€e.g.òòóó€òòóóRhue€v.€Dawsonóó,€841€P.2d€215,€228€(Ariz.€1992)€(holding€thatÐ ¼  Ðplaintiff€could€recover€both€treble€damages€under€state€racketeering€statute€and€€punitive€damagesÐ „ X Ðunder€fraud€and€breach€of€fiduciary€duty€claims€because€the€statute€provided€that€actions€brought€underÐ L  Ðit€are€ð ðremedial€and€not€punitiveðð€and€that€civil€remedies€provided€under€it€are€ð ðsupplemental€and€notÐ è Ðmutually€exclusiveðð);òò€òòóóToyota€of€Florence€v.€Lynchóó,€442€S.E.2d€611,€616€(S.C.€1994)€(holding€thatÐ Ü° Ðplaintiff€could€recover€both€doubled€damages€under€the€state€ð ðRegulation€of€Manufacturers,€DistributorsÐ ¤x Ðand€Dealers€Actðð€€and€punitive€damages€in€connection€with€the€common€law€claim€because€the€ActÐ l@ Ðexpressly€allows€both€types€of€damages).€Ensuring€that€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€willÐ 4  Ðnot€inhibit€plaintiffs€from€pleading€other€theories€of€recovery€in€addition€to€the€Act,€the€General€AssemblyÐ üÐ  Ðincluded€decisive€language€in€the€Act€that€provides€that€ð ð[t]he€powers€and€remedies€provided€in€this€partРĘ  Ðshall€be€cumulative€and€supplementary€to€all€other€powers€and€remedies€otherwise€provided€by€law.ððÐ Œ`  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„112€(1995).€€òòSee€alsoòòóó€òòóóMyint€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€970€S.W.2d€920,€926€(Tenn.Ð T(  Ð1998);€òòMorris€v.€Mackððs€Used€Carsóó,€824€S.W.2d€538,€539„40€(Tenn.€1992);òò€òòóóLaymance€v.€Vaughnóó,€857Ð ð  ÐS.W.2d€36,€37€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€However€the€non„exclusive€nature€of€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÐ ä¸  ÐProtection€Act€does€not€override€the€well„settled€principle€that€recovery€of€both€multiple€damagesÐ ¬€  Ðpursuant€to€a€statute€and€of€punitive€damages€in€connection€with€common€law€claims€amounts€to€anÐ tH  Ðimproper€duplicative€recovery.€òòSeeóóòò€óóòòSmith€Corona€Corp.óó,€784€F.€Supp.€at€483;€òòLienóó,€993€S.W.2d€at€58.€ò òÐ < Ðó óEven€though€a€plaintiff€may€pursue€any€number€of€common€law€claims€in€conjunction€with€the€statutoryÐ Ø Ðcause€of€action,€the€plaintiff€will€be€required€to€select€either€treble€damages€or€punitive€damages,€in€theÐ Ì  Ðevent€each€are€awarded. ˆÝ ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€later€clarified€that€it€intended€to€include€the€$26,000€the€plaintiffs€had€incurred€inÐ ,  Ðattorneys€fees€up€until€trial€in€its€award€of€$75,000,€leaving€a€pure€compensatory€award€of€$49,000.€€ >Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€special€verdict€form€did€not€provide€the€jury€with€an€opportunity€to€communicate€whetherÐ ,  Ðthe€contract€had€been€breached.ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòStoner€v.€Houstonóó,€582€S.W.2d€28€(Ark.€1979);òò€óó€òòCieri€€v.€Leticia€Query€Realty,€Inc.óó,€905Ð ,  ÐP.2d€29€(Haw.€1995);òò€òòóóCiampi€v.€Ogden€Chrysler€Plymouthóó,€634€N.E.2d€448€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1994);€òòOsborneÐ ô È Ðv.€Wengeróó,€572€N.E.2d€1343€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòJohnson€v.€Tyleróó,€277€N.W.2d€617€(Iowa€1979);€òòEllisÐ ¼  Ðv.€Northern€Star€Coòò.óóóó,€388€S.E.2d€127€(N.C.€1990);€òòBjorgen€v.€Kinsyóó,€466€N.W.2d€553€(N.D.€1991);òòÐ „ X ÐòòóóWagoner€v.€Bennettóó,€814€P.2d€476€(Okla.€1991);€òòAdamson€v.€Marianne€Fabric,€Inc.óó,€391€S.E.2d€249Ð L   Ð(S.C.€1990);€òòBirchfield€v.€Texarkana€Memððl€Hosp.óó,€747€S.W.2d€361€(Tex.€1987);òò€òòóóJohn€Mohr€&€Sons,€Inc.Ð ,  Ðv.€Johnkeóó,€198€N.W.2d€363€(Wis.€1974).€€€òòBut€seeòòóó€òòóóNeibel€€v.€Transworld€Assurance€Co.óó,€108€F.3d€1123,Ð ô È Ð1130€(9th€Cir.€1997)€(holding€that€a€plaintiff€may€receive€both€treble€damages€under€RICO€and€stateÐ ¼  Ðlaw€punitive€damages€for€the€same€course€of€conduct);€òòFreeman€v.€A.€&€M.€Mobile€Home€Sales,€Inc.óó,Ð „ X Ð359€S.E.2d€532,€536€(S.C.€Ct.€App.€1987)€(upholding€an€award€of€punitive€damages€based€on€commonÐ L  Ðlaw€fraud€and€of€treble€damages€pursuant€to€the€South€Carolina€Unfair€Trade€Practice€Act€only€becauseÐ è Ðthe€defendants€never€filed€a€motion€requiring€the€plaintiff€to€elect€her€remedy);€òòBerry€PropertyÐ Ü° ÐManagement,€Inc.€v.€Bliskeyóó,€850€S.W.2d€644,€665€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1993)€(holding€that€both€punitive€andÐ ¤x Ðtreble€damages€were€recoverable€under€the€Texas€Deceptive€Trade€Practices€Act€because€each€of€theÐ l@ Ðplaintiffððs€claims€resulted€from€a€distinct€act;€however€because€the€plaintiff€suffered€only€oneÐ 4  Ðcompensable€injury,€she€could€only€be€awarded€one€recovery€for€actual,€compensatory€damages). «Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Court€of€Appeals€mistakenly€believed€that€a€verdict€form€containing€a€misstatement€ofÐ ,  Ðthe€law€contributed€to€the€juryððs€misunderstanding€about€the€relationship€between€the€ConsumerÐ ô È ÐProtection€Act€and€punitive€damages.€€The€record€reveals€that€due€to€some€oversight€the€trial€court€readÐ ¼  Ða€verdict€form€to€the€jury€that€erroneously€indicated€that€punitive€damages€were€available€under€theÐ „ X ÐConsumer€Protection€Act.€€However€the€error€was€immediately€brought€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention€andÐ L  Ðan€explanation€and€corrected€reading€were€provided€to€the€jury.€€The€special€verdict€form€that€containedÐ è Ðthe€error€was€never€submitted€to€the€jury.€To€the€contrary,€although€the€jury€was€provided€with€twoÐ Ü° Ðseparate€verdict€forms€during€its€first€two€days€of€deliberation,€the€two€forms€were€identical€and€boreÐ ¤x Ðthe€corrected€version€of€the€special€interrogatories.€€Therefore,€contrary€to€the€Court€of€AppealsððÐ l@ Ðconclusion,€the€jury€was€never€given€a€verdict€form€that€contained€a€misstatement€that€punitiveÐ 4  Ðdamages€are€available€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€ åÝ ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòSeeòòóó€òòóógenerallyòòóó€óóGregory,€òòsupraóó€note€9.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€seemed€to€adopt€the€minorityÐ ,  Ðapproach€of€the€election€of€remedies€doctrine.€€It€instructed€that€ð ð[i]n€order€to€prevent€a€double€recoveryÐ ô È Ðof€exemplary€damages,€the€trial€court€should€require€the€plaintiff€to€decide€whether€it€will€pursue€punitiveÐ ¼  Ðdamages€in€accordance€with€the€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó€decision€or€whether€it€will€pursue€trebleÐ „ X Ðdamages€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3)€&€(4).ðð€€This€language€implies€that€Ð L  Ðplaintiffs€are€not€entitled€to€an€assessment€by€the€jury€and€judge€of€the€amounts€of€each€form€ofÐ è Ðenhanced€damages€before€making€an€election€of€remedies.€ [Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhile€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€that€carefully€prepared€jury€instructions€andÐ ,  Ðcompanion€special€verdict€forms€can€alleviate€confusion€when€juries€must€apply€different€standardsÐ ô È Ðunder€multiple€claims€for€relief,€we€disagree€with€the€intermediate€courtððs€statement€that€the€juryÐ ¼  Ðassesses€whether€the€defendantððs€conduct€met€the€knowing€and€willful€standard€necessary€to€imposeÐ „ X Ðtreble€damages€under€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3)€(1995)Ð L  Ðprovides€that€it€is€the€trial€court,€and€not€the€jury,€that€determines€whether€the€defendantððs€violation€wasÐ è Ðknowing€and€willful.€€If€the€trial€court€finds€the€requisite€culpability,€it€may€then€apply€the€factors€set€forthÐ Ü° Ðat€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(4)€to€decide€whether€to€award€treble€damages.€€The€Court€ofÐ ¤x ÐAppealsðð€opinion€therefore€incorrectly€instructs€trial€courts€to€submit€to€the€jury€the€issue€of€whether€aÐ l@ Ðdefendant€has€acted€in€a€knowing€and€willful€manner€in€suits€involving€the€Consumer€Protection€Act. 7Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.01€provides€that€ð ðrelief€in€the€alternative€or€of€several€different€types€mayÐ ,  Ðbe€demanded.ðð †Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òògenerallyóóòò€óóLisa€K.€Gregory,€Annotation,€òòPlaintiffððs€Rights€to€Punitive€or€Multiple€DamagesÐ ,  ÐWhen€Cause€of€Action€Renders€Both€Availableóó,€2€A.L.R.€5th€449,€459€(1992).€ ½Ý ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeòòóó€òòóóGrogan€v.€Garneróó,€806€F.2d€829,€839€(8th€Cir.€1986)€(recognizing€that€when€a€statutoryÐ ,  Ðfederal€securities€claim€overlaps€with€a€pendent€state€law€claim,€once€a€determination€of€liability€andÐ ô È Ðdamages€is€made€under€each€claim,€the€plaintiff€is€ð ðentitled€to€the€greatest€amount€recoverable€underÐ ¼  Ðany€single€theory€pled€....ðð);òò€òòóóSuperTurf,€Inc.€v.€Monsanto€Co.óó,€660€F.2d€1275,€1284€(8th€Cir.€1981)Ð „ X Ð(holding€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€plaintiffððs€request€to€instruct€the€jury€on€all€its€claims€andÐ L  Ðto€submit€a€special€verdict€form€and€by€instead€requiring€the€plaintiff€to€elect€between€its€statutoryÐ è Ðantitrust€claim€and€its€common€law€tort€claims€to€be€submitted€to€the€jury);òò€òòóóBill€Terryððs,€Inc.€v.€AtlanticÐ Ü° ÐMotor€Sales,€Inc.òòóó,€óó409€So.2d€507,€509€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1982)€(concluding€that€plaintiff€may€submitÐ ¤x Ðall€claims€to€the€jury€and€that€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€the€higher€award€between€punitives€in€connectionÐ l@ Ðwith€the€common€law€fraud€claims€and€treble€damages€under€the€Federal€Odometer€DisclosureÐ 4  ÐStatute);€òòCieri€v.€Leticia€Query€Realty,€Inc.óó,€905€P.2d€29,€46€(Haw.€1995)€(holding€that€a€plaintiff€isÐ üÐ  Ðentitled€to€either€statutory€treble€damages€or€punitive€damages,€whichever€is€the€greater);€€òòHarris€v.РĘ  ÐManor€Healthcare€Corpòò.óóóó,€489€N.E.2d€1374,€1381€(Ill.€1986)(holding€that€where€plaintiffs€were€entitledÐ Œ`  Ðto€recover€both€treble€damages€and€punitive€damages€under€the€Illinois€Nursing€Home€Care€ReformÐ T(  ÐAct,€both€issues€could€be€submitted€to€the€jury€and€the€plaintiff€could€choose€which€award€to€beÐ ð  Ðreflected€in€the€judgment);€òòHale€v.€Basin€Motor€Co.óó,€795€P.2d€1006,€1012€(N.M.€1990)€(holding€thatÐ ä¸  Ðwhere€a€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€treble€damages€under€its€state€Unfair€Trade€Practices€Act€and€to€punitiveÐ ¬€  Ðdamages€under€common€law€claims€of€fraud,€trial€court€should€have€submitted€each€theory€of€recoveryÐ tH  Ðto€the€jury€and€then€allowed€plaintiff€to€elect€between€the€awards€with€duplicative€elements)òò;€óóòòAce€Chem.Ð < ÐCorp.,€v.€DSI€Transports,€Inc.óó,€446€S.E.2d€100,€105€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1994)€(holding€that€trial€court€erredÐ Ø Ðby€requiring€plaintiff€to€select€which€remedy€to€submit€to€the€jury€because€plaintiff€was€allowed€to€electÐ Ì  Ðits€remedy€between€punitive€damages€and€statutory€treble€after€the€jury's€verdict€on€all€claims€wasÐ ”h Ðrendered).€€Some€courts€merely€state€that€the€higher€award€should€automatically€be€reflected€in€the€finalÐ \0 Ðjudgment.€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóPurina€Mills,€Inc.€v.€Odellóó,€948€S.W.2d€927,€940€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(holding€that€whenÐ $ø ¾ Ða€prevailing€party€fails€to€elect€between€alternative€measures€of€damages,€the€court€must€enterÐ ,  Ðjudgment€reflecting€the€findings€affording€the€greater€recovery);€òòBirchfield€v.€Texarkana€Memððl€Hosp.óó,Ð ô È Ð747€S.W.2d€361,€367€(Tex.€1987)€(holding€that€where€a€prevailing€party€fails€to€elect€betweenÐ ¼  Ðalternative€measures€of€damages,€the€court€should€utilize€the€findings€affording€the€greater€recoveryÐ „ X Ðand€render€judgment€accordingly).€€€ò ò€€ó óÐ L  Ð RÝ ƒ97$ÝÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡XrÊXòô‹mÔ€Ô#†ô‹mòXXrÊ®#ÔòòSeeòòóó€òòóóAll€v.€John€Gerber€Co.óó,€36€Tenn.€App.€134,€138,€252€S.W.2d€138,€139€(1952).,kû¤AZ‹"Arial Regular d- ù-( G27$¤¤Ý ƒDz!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€rÊXXdðdð8ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTRY,3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  ÝÓÓà Ø àÔ€ô‹mòXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó dÝ ƒ[½Ö"ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€^X¹XXXÔÔ€^:S X^X¹ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€^X¹X ^:SÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€30,€1999Ð    ÐÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.Ð xx ÐAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAŠÔó óZ[\]_Eþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3½Ö$¢¢Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý(.3½Ö$££Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(((()ÿÿ!dxdxqx' Ý ƒDz!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€rÊXXdðdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÑTRY,3Ø' LetterXà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€rÊÐXdÐd=ÓÑ, °ÑÑ` °ÑÑ€ ÑÑTR[ð AØ'ÿ LegalY,3Ø' Letter  AØ'ÿ Legal 3Ø' LetterTÑÓ  ÓÔ‡X¹XXXÔÓÓÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà@Ø Ø Ìàò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ,  Ðà@úú(ÌàAT€NASHVILLEó óˆÐ  ì ÐÔ_Ôßx€YX_B2.jzñÿ:`  `€€@ÿE©> ` 8ttxPá ð : xßÔ_ÔÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óà H! àà  # àÐ ¶Š Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àÌÌCONCRETE€SPACES,€INC.,à 8 àà  à)à è àò òFiled:€August€30,€1999ó óÐ nB ÐFAUX€FUR,€INC.,€PAULETTEà 8 àà  à)Ð Z.  ÐDALTON,€STUART€DALTON,à 8 àà  à)Ð @  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð &ú  Ðà Ø àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à 8 àà  à)à è àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÔ#†XrÊXXX¹Ò#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔÐ  à  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÔ#†XrÊXXX¹0#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔÐ òÆ  Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÔ#†XrÊXXX¹Ü#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔHon.€Whitney€Ô_ÔStegallÔ_ÔÔ#†XrÊXXX¹Š #ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔà H! àà  # àРج  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÔ#†XrÊXXX¹ #ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔChancellorÔ#†XrÊXXX¹Ä #ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔÐ ¾’  ÐHENRY€SENDER,€Individually,à 8 àà  à)à è àÔ#†XrÊXXX¹ #ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔÐ ¤x ÐÔ#†XrÊXXX¹§ #ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔDARREN€Ô_ÔLIFFÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔZACKARYÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLIFFÔ_Ô,€à  à)Ð Š^ ÐHENRY€SENDER,€EUGENE€SACKS€à  à)Ð pD Ðand€wife,€RUTH€SACKS,€d/b/a€Ô_ÔLIFFÔ_Ô,à  à)Ð V* ÐSENDER€&€SACKS,€Tenants€inà 8 àà  àÔ#†XrÊXXX¹þ #ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔ)Ô#†XrÊXXX¹¯ #ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔÐ < ÐCommon,€NATIONAL€BUILDINGà 8 àà  àÔ#†XrÊXXX¹ò #ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔ)Ð "ö ÐCORP.,à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àSupreme€CourtÐ Ü Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÔ#†XrÊXXX¹z#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔNo.€€01SÔ#†XrÊXXX¹˜#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔ01„9812„CH„00224Ô#†XrÊXXX¹â#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔÐ î Ðà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà  à)à è àÔ#†XrÊXXX¹4#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔÐ Ô¨ ÐÌÌòòÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€PLAINTIFFS/€APPELLANTSà  àóóà è àòòFOR€DEFENDANTS/€APPELLEESóóÐ ê'¾! ÐSteve€North€&à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àCharles€Hampton€WhiteÐ Ð(¤" ÐMark€Northà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àÔ#†XrÊXXX¹Ñ#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔRichard€L.€ColbertÐ ¶)Š# ÐMadison,€TNÔ#†XrÊXXX¹a#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àDavid€A.€KingÐ œ*p $ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àCornelius€&€CollinsÐ ‚+V!% ÐÔ#†XrÊXXX¹Õ#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔAbby€Ô_ÔRubenfeldÔ_ÔÔ#†XrÊXXX¹ý#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€TNÐ h,<"& ÐNashville,€TNÔ#†XrÊXXX¹m#ÔÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔÐ N-"#' ÐÌÌÌÔ‡„òŠ„XX¹Ôà@RR+Ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†X¹X„„òŠQ#ԈРæ0º&+ ÐÓñÓÔ#†XrÊXXX¹#ÔÌÌREMANDED€FOR€NEW€TRIAL.à 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àÔ_ÔDROWOTAÔ_Ô,€J.Ð  6Þ+0# ÐÔ_Ô€€à Ø àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€address€the€application€of€the€election€ofÐ ,  Ðremedies€doctrine€in€Tennessee€and€to€clarify€the€proper€procedure€to€beÐ  à Ðimplemented€when€a€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€both€punitive€damages€in€conjunctionÐ ì À Ðwith€a€common€law€claim€and€to€multiple€damages€pursuant€to€a€statutory€remedy.€Ð Ì  ÐWe€have€determined€that€a€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€a€calculation€of€the€amount€ofÐ ¬€ Ðpunitive€damages€and€multiple€damages€that€are€warranted€under€each€theory€ofÐ Œ`  Ðliability.€€Only€after€these€assessments€are€made€is€the€plaintiff€required€to€makeÐ l@  Ðan€election€of€remedies.€€Because€this€procedure€was€not€implemented€in€thisÐ L  Ðcase,€we€remand€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.Ð , ÐÓ  Óò òòòÌBACKGROUNDó óóóÐ ìÀ ÐÓÓà Ø àThis€action€arose€from€a€dispute€over€a€lease€involving€space€in€CumminsÐ Ì  ÐStation,€a€piece€of€commercial€property€in€Davidson€County.€€€Henry€Sender,Ð ¬ € Ðalong€with€four€other€investors,€purchased€Cummins€Station,€a€five„story€buildingÐ Œ"` Ðin€downtown€Nashville,€in€March€1993,€with€plans€to€renovate€the€eighty„six„year„Ð l$@ Ðold€structure€and€to€attract€commercial€tenants.€€Paulette€Dalton,€who€owned€aÐ L&  Ðclothing€boutique€and€an€art€gallery€in€downtown€Nashville,€learned€in€July€1993Ð ,(  Ðthat€commercial€space€was€available€for€lease€in€Cummins€Station€and€becameÐ  *à" Ðinterested€in€relocating€her€businesses€to€the€renovated€building.€€Ms.€Dalton€hadÐ ì+À!$ Ðalready€begun€negotiations€with€Gavin€Gaskins,€who€managed€several€areaÐ Ì- #& Ðnightclubs,€to€relocate€her€boutique€and€gallery€to€a€location€where€they€could€beÐ ¬/€%( Ðcombined€with€a€nightclub.€€€Ms.€Dalton€and€Mr.€Gaskins€thought€the€newlyÐ Œ1`'* Ðrenovated€Cummins€Station€would€provide€adequate€space€and€a€prime€locationÐ l3@), Ðfor€their€project.€€They€formed€two€corporations€through€which€to€conduct€theirÐ L5 +. Ðvarious€businesses;€Ms.€Dalton€and€her€husband€incorporated€Concrete€Spaces,Ð ,  ÐInc.€to€manage€the€clothing€boutique€and€art€gallery,€and€Ms.€Dalton€and€Mr.Ð  à ÐGaskins€incorporated€Faux€Fur,€Inc.€to€manage€the€nightclub.€Ð ì À ÐÌà Ø àAfter€inspecting€the€available€space€in€Cummins€Station€and€becomingÐ ¬€ Ðsatisfied€that€the€property€was€suitable€for€their€venture,€Ms.€Dalton€and€Mr.Ð Œ`  ÐGaskins€began€negotiations€to€enter€into€a€lease€with€Henry€Sender€and€his€son„Ð l@  Ðin„law,€Michael€Cooper,€president€of€National€Building€Corporation€(ð ðNBCðð),€theÐ L  Ðcompany€managing€the€Cummins€Station€renovation€project.€€Ms.€Dalton€assertedÐ , Ðher€intent€to€open€the€businesses€in€October,€and€the€leasing€agents€assured€herÐ  à Ðthat€she€would€be€able€to€occupy€the€proposed€space€by€October€1,€1993.€ò ò€€€€€€€€ó óÐ ìÀ ÐÌà Ø àAfter€considerable€negotiations,€the€parties€executed€two€leases€on€AugustÐ ¬ € Ð26,€1993.€€The€Daltons€entered€into€one€lease€on€behalf€of€Concrete€Spaces,€Inc.Ð Œ"` Ðfor€the€space€to€be€used€for€the€boutique€and€gallery,€and€Ms.€Dalton€and€Mr.Ð l$@ ÐGaskins€entered€into€the€other€on€behalf€of€Faux€Fur,€Inc.€for€the€space€to€be€usedÐ L&  Ðas€a€nightclub.€€Each€lease€was€for€a€term€of€five€years€and€provided€for€monthlyÐ ,(  Ðrent€of€$1,222.50.€€The€leases€also€stipulated€that€additional€improvements€wouldÐ  *à" Ðbe€made€to€the€property€and€included€an€exhibit€illustrating€the€areas€to€beÐ ì+À!$ Ðrefurbished.€€Ð Ì- #& ÐÌ€à Ø àIn€the€months€following€the€execution€of€the€leases,€several€disputes€aroseÐ Œ1`'* Ðbetween€the€parties€over€allocation€of€responsibility€for€the€continuedÐ l3@), Ðimprovements€on€the€rented€space.€€€One€of€the€most€significant€disagreementsÐ L5 +. Ðconcerned€the€obligation€to€pay€for€electrical€work€during€renovation.€€NotÐ ,  Ðsurprisingly,€construction€was€delayed.€€Nevertheless,€Ms.€Dalton€was€able€toÐ  à Ðconduct€a€grand€opening€of€her€clothing€boutique€and€art€gallery€on€OctoberÐ ì À Ð22,1993.€€€Ð Ì  ÐÌà Ø àMs.€Dalton€successfully€acquired€insurance€coverage€for€the€inventory€inÐ Œ`  Ðher€shops€because€she€obtained€assurances€from€NBC€that€the€building€wasÐ l@  Ðsecure€and€that€the€fire€sprinkler€system€was€sufficient.€€Despite€theseÐ L  Ðrepresentations,€Ms.€Daltonððs€boutique€and€art€gallery€were€burglarized€on€twoÐ , Ðoccasions€in€October€1993.€€All€of€her€inventory€was€stolen,€along€with€a€safeÐ  à Ðcontaining€$2,350€in€cash,€business€documents,€a€stereo€system€and€a€cashÐ ìÀ Ðregister.€€Ms.€Dalton€contended€that€Henry€Sender€and€NBC€should€incurÐ Ì  Ðresponsibility€for€her€extensive€loss€because€she€relied€upon€their€assurances€thatÐ ¬ € Ðthe€building€was€secure.€€€The€lessors€refused€to€reimburse€Ms.€Dalton,€insistingÐ Œ"` Ðthat€her€lease€stipulated€that€she€was€responsible€for€the€security€of€the€space.€€€€Ð l$@ ÐÌà Ø àMs.€Dalton€was€unable€to€reopen€the€boutique€and€gallery€andÐ ,(  Ðconcentrated€instead€on€preparing€for€the€grand€opening€of€the€nightclub€she€wasÐ  *à" Ðto€operate€with€Mr.€Gaskins.€€Because€of€construction€delays,€the€clubððs€openingÐ ì+À!$ Ðwas€rescheduled€from€October€1993€until€January€28,€1994.€€In€the€meantime,€Ms.Ð Ì- #& ÐDalton€and€Mr.€Gaskins€continued€to€disagree€with€their€lessors€aboutÐ ¬/€%( Ðresponsibility€for€the€electrical€work€that€had€been€completed€in€the€leased€space.€€Ð Œ1`'* ÐMoreover,€in€early€January€1994,€Ms.€Dalton€was€unable€to€obtain€beer€and€danceÐ l3@), Ðpermits€because€the€lessors€failed€to€provide€her€with€a€use€and€occupancy€permitÐ L5 +. Ðand€a€certificate€from€the€fire€marshal.€€Relations€between€the€parties€steadilyÐ ,  Ðworsened,€culminating€with€Mr.€Senderððs€refusal€to€meet€with€Ms.€Dalton.€€In€earlyÐ  à ÐNovember€1994,€Mr.€Gaskins€informed€Henry€Sender€that€€Faux€Fur,€Inc.€wasÐ ì À Ðterminating€its€lease€due€to€continual€breaches€by€the€lessors.€€Mr.€SenderÐ Ì  Ðasserted€that€he€and€NBC€intended€to€hold€Faux€Fur,€Inc.€fully€responsible€for€itsÐ ¬€ Ðobligations€under€the€lease.€€€Ð Œ`  ÐÌà Ø àThrough€an€attorney,€Ms.€Dalton€informed€the€lessors€on€April€6,€1994,€thatÐ L  Ðthey€had€breached€the€leases€with€Concrete€Spaces,€Inc.€and€Faux,€Fur,€Inc.€byÐ , Ðdelaying€construction€and€by€failing€to€obtain€a€use€and€occupancy€permit€from€theÐ  à Ðfire€marshal.€€€The€attorney€asserted€that€Ms.€Dalton€and€Mr.€Gaskins€intended€toÐ ìÀ Ðvacate€the€leased€premises€on€April€11,€1994.€€Ð Ì  ÐÌà Ø àThe€Daltons€and€the€two€corporations€filed€suit€on€April€7,€1994,€in€theÐ Œ"` ÐChancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€against€Henry€Sender,€NBC€and€theÐ l$@ Ðpartnership€that€owned€Cummins€Station.€€The€plaintiffs€sought€compensatory,Ð L&  Ðpunitive€and€treble€damages€under€claims€for€breach€of€contract,€negligentÐ ,(  Ðmisrepresentation,€fraudulent€misrepresentation€and€violation€of€the€TennesseeÐ  *à" ÐConsumer€Protection€Act.€€€The€essence€of€the€Daltonsðð€claim€was€that€Mr.€SenderÐ ì+À!$ Ðand€his€business€associates€had€deceived€them€about€the€quality€and€availabilityÐ Ì- #& Ðof€the€space€in€Cummins€Station€and€that€Mr.€Sender€had€ð ðintentionally€carried€onÐ ¬/€%( Ða€systematic€plan€of€harassment€and€lack€of€cooperationðð€to€force€them€toÐ Œ1`'* Ðâ âabandon€their€leases€in€order€to€enable€him€to€lease€the€space€to€others€on€moreÐ l3@), Ðfavorable€terms.€The€lessors€filed€a€counterclaim€asserting€that€the€plaintiffs€hadÐ ,  Ðbreached€the€leases.Ð  à Ðâ âÌà Ø àFollowing€a€nine„day€trial,€the€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€on€theÐ Ì  Ðelements€of€the€plaintiffsðð€common€law€claims,€including€breach€of€contract,Ð ¬€ Ðintentional€misrepresentation׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€negligent€misrepresentation€and€on€theÐ Œ`  Ðdefendantððs€counterclaim€for€breach€of€contract.€€The€court€also€properlyÐ l@  Ðinstructed€the€jury€that€€the€plaintiffs€were€seeking€punitive€damages€and€that€suchÐ L  Ðdamages€could€be€awarded€only€if€the€jury€made€an€underlying€award€ofÐ , Ðcompensatory€damages.€€However€the€trial€court€provided€no€initial€instruction€onÐ  à Ðthe€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€After€deliberations€had€begun,€the€juryÐ ìÀ Ðrequested€a€copy€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€In€response€to€this€inquiry,€theÐ Ì  Ðtrial€court€merely€gave€a€cursory€explanation€of€the€Actððs€purpose€and€informedÐ ¬ € Ðthe€jury€that€it€was€required€to€determine€whether€the€plaintiffs€had€proven,€by€aÐ Œ"` Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€the€defendant€engaged€in€an€unfair€andÐ l$@ Ðdeceptive€business€practice.€€€€€Ð L&  ÐÌà Ø àCompounding€the€confusion€surrounding€the€jury€instructions,€the€specialÐ  *à" Ðverdict€form€did€not€clarify€the€pivotal€issues€to€be€decided€by€the€jury.€€Due€toÐ ì+À!$ Ðpoor€drafting,€both€grammatical€and€substantive,€the€jury€was€not€given€anÐ Ì- #& Ðopportunity€to€convey€its€findings€under€each€theory€of€liability€presented€by€theÐ ¬/€%( Ðplaintiffs.€€The€special€verdict€form,€reviewed€by€the€parties€and€submitted€to€theÐ ,  Ðjury€by€the€trial€court,€appears€below€with€the€juryððs€responses.Ð  à ÐÒØ €ÒÒÀÒÓÓÔ‡ô‹mòXXrÊÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌWe,€the€jury,€in€the€cause€of€òòConcrete€Spaces,€Inc.,€et€al.€v.€Henry€Sender,€et€al.óóÐ ôÈ  Ðfind€as€follows:Ð ¼  ÐÌà 0 à1.à0 ˆ àWe€find€for€the€plaintiff€against€the€defendant€and€fix€theÐ L  Ðcompensatory€damages€at€_ò òòò$75,000€plus€accrued€attorneysÐ è  Ðfees€through€caseó óóó€òòò òclosureó ó€€€€€€€óó.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ÐÜ°ˆÀ!ˆÀ! ÐÌÓ  ÓORÐ l@ ÐÌÓ  Óà 0 à2.à0 ˆ àWe€find€for€the€defendant€against€the€plaintiff€and€fix€theÐ üÐ Ðcompensatory€damages€at€__________.ÐĘˆÀ!ˆÀ! ÐÌà 0 àÌà 0 à3.à0 ˆ àWe€find€that€there€was€no€meeting€of€the€minds€and,€therefore,€no€à @„! à€Ð ð Ðcontract.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð丈À!ˆÀ! ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` à€€€€€YES€_____€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€OR€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€NO€__ò òòòXóóó ó___Ð t!H ÐÌÓ  Óà 0 àÌà 0 à4.à0 ˆ àIf€compensatory€damages€for€the€plaintiff€were€fixed€by€the€jury,Ð Ì#   Ðthen€the€jury€will€answer€this€question.€€Are€the€plaintiffs€dueÐ ”$h! Ðpunitive€€damages.Ð\%0"ˆÀ!ˆÀ! ÐÌ€à 0 à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€YES€__ò òòòXóóó ó___€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€OR€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€NO€_____Ð ì&À$ ÐÌà 0 àÌà 0 à5.à0 ˆ àIf€you€find€that€the€plaintiffs€are€entitled€to€compensatory€damages,Ð D)' Ðdid€such€damages€arise€from€an€unfair€or€deceptive€act€or€practiceÐ  *à( Ðby€the€defendants€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Act€[sic]?ÐÔ*¨ )ˆÀ!ˆÀ! ÐÌà 0 àà ˆ à€€€€YES€__òòò òXó óóó___€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€OR€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€NO€_____Ð d,8"+ Ðâ âÒ€Ø Â?ÒÒÀÐ?ÒÔ#†XrÊXòô‹mð?#ÔÓÞ?ÓÐ ,-#, Ðà Ø àSince€the€jury€awarded€the€plaintiffs€$75,000€in€compensatory€damagesÐ ,  Ðâ âand€indicated€that€punitive€damages€were€warranted,€all€parties€consented€to€aÐ  à Ðhearing€on€punitive€damages€pursuant€to€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2dÐ ì À Ð896,€901„902€(Tenn.€1992).€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€jury€awarded€theÐ Ì  Ðplaintiffs€$1,100,000€in€punitive€damages.€€The€trial€court€subsequently€remittedÐ ¬€ Ðthat€award€to€$500,000,€the€amount€prayed€for€in€the€complaint.Ð Œ`  ÐÌà Ø àThe€defendants€appealed€the€judgment,€primarily€taking€issue€with€theÐ L  Ðpunitive€damages€award.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€first€recognized€that€punitiveÐ , Ðdamages€are€not€available€in€conjunction€with€a€claim€under€the€TennesseeÐ  à ÐConsumer€Protection€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòLorentz€v.€Deardanóó,€834€S.W.2d€316,€320€(Tenn.Ð ìÀ ÐApp.€1992);€òòPaty€v.€Herb€Adcox€Chevrolet€Co.óó,€756€S.W.2d€697,€699€(Tenn.€App.Ð Ì  Ð1988).€€€Because€the€jury€awarded€the€plaintiffs€punitive€damages€and€alsoÐ ¬ € Ðindicated,€in€response€to€Question€Five,€that€the€award€of€compensatory€damagesÐ Œ"` Ðarose€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ l$@ Ðdeemed€the€verdicts€inconsistent.€€€€Ð L&  ÐÌà Ø àThe€intermediate€court€stated€that€an€inconsistent€verdict€ð ðresolves€noÐ  *à" Ðconflicts€and€is€no€verdict€at€all,ðð€òòseeóó€òòMcInturff€v.€Whiteóó,€565€S.W.2d€478,€481Ð ì+À!$ Ð(Tenn.€1976),€and€emphasized€that€no€effect€can€be€given€ð ðto€a€juryððs€verdictÐ Ì- #& Ðbased€on€irreconcilably€inconsistent€answers€to€special€interrogatories.ðð€€òòSeeòòóó€óóòòHockÐ ¬/€%( Ðv.€New€York€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€876€P.2d€1242,€1259€(Colo.€1994);€òòCarr€v.€Strodeóó,€904Ð Œ1`'* ÐP.2d€489,€503€(Haw.€1995);€òòShamrock,€Inc.€v.€FDICóó,€679€N.E.2d€344,€349€(Mass.Ð l3@), ÐCt.€App.€1994).€€Recognizing€that€verdicts€have€both€a€liability€and€a€damagesÐ L5 +. Ðcomponent,׃"×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€court€concluded€that€the€juryððs€inconsistent€findings€related€onlyÐ ,  Ðto€damages€and€did€not€invalidate€the€verdict€with€respect€to€liability€andÐ  à Ðcompensatory€damages.€€Because€punitive€damages€and€treble€damages€mayÐ ì À Ðnot€be€recovered€in€the€same€action,€òòseeóóòò€òòóóLorentzóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€320;€òòPatyóó,€756Ð Ì  ÐS.W.2d€at€699,€the€Court€of€Appeals€then€vacated€the€award€of€punitive€damagesÐ ¬€ Ðas€incompatible€with€the€finding€that€compensatory€damages€arose€from€aÐ Œ`  Ðviolation€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€and€remanded€the€case€for€aÐ l@  Ðdetermination€of€whether€the€compensatory€damage€award€should€be€trebled€inÐ L  Ðaccordance€with€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„Ð , Ð18„109(a)(3)€&€(4)€(1995).׃€×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  à ÐÌà Ø àThereafter,€we€granted€the€plaintiffsðð€application€for€permission€to€appeal.€Ð Ì  ÐBecause€the€special€verdict€form€employed€at€trial€fails€to€provide€informationÐ ¬ € Ðnecessary€to€articulate€a€judgment€in€this€case,€we€vacate€the€decisions€of€the€trialÐ Œ"` Ðcourt€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.Ð l$@ ÐÓ  Óò òòòÌTHE€ELECTION€OF€REMEDIES€DOCTRINEóóó óÐ ,(  ÐÓ·VÓà Ø àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€the€issues€in€this€appeal€with€an€overview€of€theÐ  *à" Ðrelevant€law.€€The€doctrine€of€election€of€remedies€is€implicated€when€twoÐ ì+À!$ Ðinconsistent€and€irreconcilable€remedies€are€available€to€the€plaintiff€to€redress€aÐ Ì- #& Ðsingle€wrongful€act.€òò€òòóóSeeòòóó€òòóóBarger€v.€Webbóó,€391€S.W.2d€664,€667€(Tenn.€1965);òòÐ ¬/€%( ÐòòóóAllied€Sound,€Inc.€v.€Neelyóó,€909€S.W.2d€815,€822€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€The€purposeÐ ,  Ðof€the€doctrine€is€to€prevent€double€redress€for€a€single€wrong,€òòseeòòóó€òòóóBargeróó,€391Ð  à ÐS.W.2d€at€667;€òòBarnes€v.€Walkeróó,€199€Tenn.€364,€368,€234€S.W.2d€648,€650Ð ì À Ð(Tenn.€1950),€and€it€requires€the€plaintiff€in€such€a€scenario€to€choose€one€theoryÐ Ì  Ðof€recovery€under€which€to€proceed.€€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóForbes€v.€Wilson€County€EmergencyÐ ¬€ ÐDist.€911€Bd.óó,€966€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn€1998).€€€Ð Œ`  ÐÌà Ø àAt€first€glance€there€appears€to€be€some€discord€between€the€doctrine€ofÐ L  Ðelection€of€remedies€and€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.01,€which€grants€a€plaintiff€wideÐ , Ðlatitude€in€pleading€alternative€claims€for€relief€and€pursuing€an€array€of€theories€ofÐ  à Ðrecovery€in€a€single€action.€€A€common€example€of€this€friction€occurs€when€aÐ ìÀ Ðplaintiff€seeks€multiple€damages€under€an€available€statutory€remedy€as€well€asÐ Ì  Ðpunitive€damages€pursuant€to€a€common€law€claim.€€€While€this€type€of€alternativeÐ ¬ € Ðpleading€is€available€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.01,€double€recovery€may€occur€if€theÐ Œ"` Ðjury€decides€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€both€punitive€damages€and€multipleÐ l$@ Ðdamages.Ð L&  ÐÌà Ø àAlmost€every€jurisdiction€addressing€this€question€has€concluded€thatÐ  *à" Ðrecovery€of€both€multiple€statutory€damages€and€punitive€damages€constitutes€anÐ ì+À!$ Ðimpermissible€double€recovery€because€the€two€forms€of€enhanced€damagesÐ Ì- #& Ðserve€the€same€functions.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€The€purpose€of€punitive€damages€is€not€toÐ ¬/€%( Ðcompensate€the€plaintiff€but€to€punish€the€wrongdoer€and€to€deter€others€fromÐ ,  Ðcommitting€similar€wrongs€in€the€future.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóCoffey€v.€Fayette€Tubular€Prod.óó,€929Ð  à ÐS.W.2d€326,€328€(Tenn.€1996);òò€òòóóHodgesóó,€833€S.W.2d€atòò€óó900.€€Several€TennesseeÐ ì À Ðstatutory€schemes€achieve€the€same€objectives€of€punishment€and€deterrenceÐ Ì  Ðthrough€multiple€damage€provisions,€which€allow€for€compensatory€damages€to€beÐ ¬€ Ðtrebled€if€the€defendantððs€conduct€rises€to€a€specified€level€of€culpability.׃( ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð Œ`  ÐBecause€multiple€damages€are€punitive€in€nature€and€not€intended€to€compensateÐ l@  Ðfor€the€plaintiffððs€injury,€òòseeòòóó€òòóóSmith€Corona€Corp.€v.€Pelikan,€Inc.óó,€784€F.€Supp.€452,Ð L  Ð483€(M.D.€Tenn.€1992);€òòLien€v.€Couchóó,€993€S.W.2d€53,€58€(Tenn.€App.€1998),€aÐ , Ðplaintiff€cannot€recover€both€punitive€damages€and€multiple€damages€in€the€sameÐ  à Ðcause€of€action,€even€if€they€are€each€available,€because€receipt€of€both€forms€ofÐ ìÀ Ðâ âenhanced€damages€violates€the€principle€against€double€recovery.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóEdwardsÐ Ì  Ðv.€Travelers€Ins.€of€Hartford,€Conn.óó,€563€F.2d€105,€119„120€(6th€Cir.€1977);Ð ,  ÐòòLorentzóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€320€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€Ð  à Ðâ âÌà Ø àThe€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€provides€that€the€trial€court€mayÐ Ì  Ðaward€three€times€the€amount€of€actual€damages€sustained€if€a€defendantððs€use€ofÐ ¬€ Ðthe€unfair€or€deceptive€act€or€practice€under€the€Act€was€willful€or€knowing.€€Tenn.Ð Œ`  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(3)(1995).€òòSee€alsoóó€òòSmith€v.€Scott€Lewis€Chevrolet,€Inc.óó,òòÐ l@  Ðóó843€S.W.2d€9,€12€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€This€allowance€for€treble€damages€isÐ L  Ðintended€to€be€punitive€rather€than€compensatory.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóSmith€Corona€Corp.óó,€784Ð , ÐF.€Supp.€at€483„84;€òòLienóó,€993€S.W.2d€at€58.€€òò€óóAccordingly,€a€plaintiff€is€precludedÐ  à Ðfrom€recovering€both€types€of€enhanced€damages€under€the€Act.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóLorentzóó,Ð ìÀ Ð834€S.W.2d€at€320òò;€òòóóPatyóó,€756€S.W.2d€at€699.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ì  Ðâ âÐ ¬ € Ðà Ø àWhen€a€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€both€punitive€damages€in€conjunction€with€aÐ ,  Ðâ âcommon€law€claim€for€relief€and€to€treble€damages€under€a€statutory€scheme,€theÐ  à Ðmajority€of€jurisdictions€employ€a€version€of€the€election€of€remedies€doctrine€toÐ ì À Ðprevent€double€recovery€of€enhanced€damages.€€Commentators€suggest€that€twoÐ Ì  Ðgeneral€trends€have€developed€with€respect€to€how€and€when€the€plaintiffððsÐ ¬€ Ðelection€is€to€be€implemented.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ò ò€ó óThe€most€prevalent€approach€allows€the€plaintiff€toÐ Œ`  Ðsubmit€to€the€fact€finder€all€theories€of€recovery,€including€the€standards€for€bothÐ l@  Ðpunitive€damages€and€multiple€damages.€€If€the€jury€(and€judge,€in€someÐ L  Ðinstances)€determines€that€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€both€forms€of€enhancedÐ , Ðdamages,€the€plaintiff€may€request€that€the€amount€of€damages€under€eachÐ  à Ðremedy€be€determined€before€making€an€election€of€which€remedy€he€or€sheÐ ìÀ Ðwould€like€the€judgment€to€reflect.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ì  Їà Ø àTwo€objectives€are€achieved€by€allowing€the€plaintiff€to€select€an€award€ofÐ ,  Ðdamages€after€the€judge€and€jury€have€decided€all€the€issues€surrounding€liabilityÐ  à Ðand€the€entitlement€and€amount€of€enhanced€damages:€€one,€improper€doubleÐ ì À Ðrecovery€is€prevented,€and€two,€the€goal€of€deterrence€is€realized.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóEasternÐ Ì  ÐStar,€Inc.€v.€Union€Bldg.€Materials€Corp.óó,€712€P.2d€1148,€1159€(Haw.€1985).€€MostÐ ¬€ Ðcourts€that€have€adopted€this€approach€agree€with€the€rationale€of€the€court€inÐ Œ`  ÐòòMapp€v.€Toyota€World,€Inc.óó,€344€S.E.2d€297,€301€(N.C.€1986),€which€observedÐ l@  Ðthat€€ð ðit€would€be€manifestly€unfair€to€require€plaintiffs€in€such€cases€to€elect€beforeÐ L  Ðthe€jury€has€answered€the€issues€and€the€trial€court€has€determined€whether€toÐ , Ðtreble€the€compensatory€damages€found€by€the€jury€.€.€.€.ðð€€€Moreover,€submittingÐ  à Ðincompatible€and€alternative€theories€of€recovery€to€a€jury€creates€no€conflict€orÐ ìÀ Ðduplicative€award€because€until€the€jury€makes€its€findings€of€liability,€no€doubleÐ Ì  Ðrecovery€can€exist.€€Any€duplicative€aspect€of€the€juryððs€findings€is€eliminated€whenÐ ¬ € Ðthe€plaintiff€makes€an€election.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóButler€v.€Josephððs€Wine€Shop,€Inc.óó,€633Ð Œ"` ÐS.W.2d€926,€933€(Tex.€App.€1982).€€Another€advantage€to€letting€the€fact€finderÐ l$@ Ðdecide€each€theory€of€recovery€is€that€all€the€findings€on€liability€and€damages€areÐ L&  Ðpreserved€for€review.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóSuperTurfóó,€660€F.2d€1275,€1279€(8th€Cir.€1981).Ð ,(  Ðâ âÐ  *à" Ðà Ø àA€very€small€minority€of€jurisdictions€requires€plaintiffs€to€make€an€electionÐ ,  Ðof€remedies€before€the€issues€are€submitted€to€the€fact€finder.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóRivers€v.€Ex„Ð  à Ðâ âCell„O€Corp.óó,€300€N.W.2d€420€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1980);€òòJohnson€v.€Jensenóó,€446Ð ì À ÐN.W.2d€664€(Minn.€1989).€€The€theory€behind€this€approach€is€that€plaintiffsÐ Ì  Ðshould€not€be€entitled€to€implement,€with€the€benefit€of€hindsight,€their€mostÐ ¬€ Ðadvantageous€remedy.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóJohnsonóó,€446€N.W.2d€at€666.€Ð Œ`  ÐÌà Ø àWe€agree€with€the€reasoning€of€the€majority€of€jurisdictions€confronted€withÐ L  Ðthis€issue€that€it€would€be€unfair€to€require€election€before€a€determination€ofÐ , Ðliability€and€entitlement€to€punitive€damages€and€multiple€damages€has€beenÐ  à Ðmade.€€In€so€concluding,€we€agree€with€the€plaintiffs€that€this€approach€does€notÐ ìÀ Ðunduly€burden€a€defendant€who€has€been€found€liable€under€more€than€oneÐ Ì  Ðtheory€of€recovery.€€The€majority€rule€simply€allows€a€plaintiff€to€realize€theÐ ¬ € Ðmaximum€recovery€available€under€the€fact€findersðð€findings.€€Given€the€punitiveÐ Œ"` Ðand€deterrent€purposes€of€punitive€and€multiple€damages,€such€a€result€is€entirelyÐ l$@ Ðproper.€Ð L&  ÐÌà Ø àThe€majority€approach€is€also€consistent€with€our€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,Ð  *à" Ðwhich€reflect€the€notion€that€plaintiffs€are€free€to€pursue€several€alternativeÐ ì+À!$ Ðtheories€of€recovery€and€to€structure€their€claims€in€the€manner€that€is€mostÐ Ì- #& Ðbeneficial€to€them.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Again,€the€election€of€remedies€doctrine€serves€only€toÐ ,  Ðprevent€double€redress€for€a€single€wrong.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóWimley€v.€Rudolphóó,€931€S.W.2dÐ  à Ð513,€515€(Tenn.€1996);€òòAllied€Sound,€Inc.óó,€909€S.W.2d€at€822.€€If€a€defendant€hasÐ ì À Ðbeen€found€liable€under€more€than€one€theory€of€recovery,€no€inequity€results€fromÐ Ì  Ðallowing€the€plaintiff€to€choose€one€of€the€claims€upon€which€to€realize€itsÐ ¬€ Ðmaximum€recovery€of€enhanced€damages.€€In€other€words,€no€danger€of€doubleÐ Œ`  Ðrecovery€exists€unless€the€plaintiff€actually€realizes€satisfaction€of€both€forms€ofÐ l@  Ðenhanced€damages.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóFreeman€v.€Myersóó,€774€S.W.2d€892,€895€€(Mo.€App.Ð L  Ð1989).òòÐ , Ðò òÓ  ÓÌPROCEDURE€IN€SUITS€INVOLVING€MULTIPLE€CLAIMSó óóóÐ ìÀ ÐÓÜÓà Ø àWhen€a€plaintiff€pursues€relief€under€more€than€one€theory€of€recovery,€theÐ Ì  Ðrisk€is€great€that€the€jury€will€become€confused€as€to€the€types€of€enhancedÐ ¬ € Ðdamages€permissible€under€each€theory€of€liability.€€This€risk€is€of€particularÐ Œ"` Ðconcern€when€the€jury€is€merely€asked€to€return€a€general€verdict.€€When€using€aÐ l$@ Ðgeneral€verdict€it€is€difficult€to€ascertain€which€portion€of€a€compensatory€award€isÐ L&  Ðattributable€to€a€violation€of€the€relevant€statute,€which€might€be€trebled,€and€whichÐ ,(  Ðportion€is€attributable€to€the€defendantððs€breach€of€a€common€law€duty,€whichÐ  *à" Ðmight€serve€as€a€basis€for€an€award€of€punitive€damages.€€Both€to€preserve€theÐ ì+À!$ Ðjuryððs€findings€and€to€facilitate€the€plaintiffððs€ability€to€elect€damages,€it€is€essentialÐ Ì- #& Ðthat€the€juryððs€liability€determinations€reflect€the€underlying€claims€upon€which€theyÐ ¬/€%( Ðare€based.€No€two€jury€trials€will€be€alike,€and€there€are€no€blanket€rules€or€catch„Ð Œ1`'* Ðall€standards€that€can€be€articulated€to€fully€explain€how€instructions€and€specialÐ ,  Ðinterrogatories€should€be€presented€to€juries€in€every€case.€€However,€in€order€toÐ  à Ðavoid€the€confusion€that€has€occurred€in€this€case,€the€following€general,€commonÐ ì À Ðsense€principles€should€guide€attorneys€and€judges€in€preparing€both€juryÐ Ì  Ðinstructions€and€special€verdict€forms€in€cases€involving€multiple€theories€of€liabilityÐ ¬€ Ðand€various€types€of€damages.Ð Œ`  ÐÌà Ø àCourts€should€provide€separate€jury€instructions€for€each€theory€of€liabilityÐ L  Ðthat€clearly€explain€the€elements€of€each€claim,€thus€enabling€the€jury€to€considerÐ , Ðwhether€the€plaintiff€has€met€its€burden€of€proof€with€respect€to€each.€€TheÐ  à Ðstandards€for€any€available€enhanced€damages€should€be€explained€inÐ ìÀ Ðconjunction€with€the€instructions€for€each€underlying€theory€of€recovery.€€ForÐ Ì  Ðexample,€the€intentional,€fraudulent,€malicious€or€willful€standard€for€punitiveÐ ¬ € Ðdamages€required€by€òòHodgesóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€900„901,€should€be€explained€withinÐ Œ"` Ðthe€separate€instructions€for€the€underlying€common€law€claims.€€Likewise,€if€theÐ l$@ Ðjury€is€to€decide€the€requisite€culpability€for€multiple€damages€under€a€statute,€anÐ L&  Ðexplanation€of€that€standard€should€be€given€in€conjunction€with€the€instructionsÐ ,(  Ðfor€that€particular€statutory€claim.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð  *à" ÐÐ ì+À!$ Ðà Ø àAs€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€this€case€recognized,€the€most€effectiveÐ ,  Ðapproach€in€dealing€with€multiple€claims€for€relief€is€to€require€the€jury€to€respondÐ  à Ðeither€to€a€general€verdict€form€accompanied€by€special€interrogatories€or€to€aÐ ì À Ðspecial€verdict€form€that€has€been€prepared€to€parallel€the€instructions€to€the€juryÐ Ì  Ðon€each€claim.€€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€49€accords€trial€courts€great€latitude€in€usingÐ ¬€ Ðspecial€verdict€forms€and€tailoring€special€interrogatories€to€meet€the€needs€ofÐ Œ`  Ðeach€unique€case.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóPetty€v.€Estate€of€Nicholsóó,€569€S.W.2d€840,€847€(Tenn.Ð l@  ÐApp.€1977).€€As€the€intermediate€court€summarized:Ð L  ÐÒÀÒÒØ €ÒÓÓSpecial€verdict€forms€should€use€the€same€terms€as€those€used€inÐ , Ðthe€jury€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòLundquist€v.€Nickelsóó,€605€N.E.2d€1373,Ð ð Ð1389€(Ill.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€They€should€repeat€and€highlight€theÐ  à Ðsalient€issues€discussed€in€the€instructions.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóKass€v.€GreatÐ üÐ ÐCoastal€Express,€Inc.óó,€676€A.2d€1099,€1107€(N.J.€Super.€1996).€Ð ìÀ ÐInconsistencies€with€jury€instructions€and€the€special€verdict€formÐ Ü° Ðmay€confuse€the€jury.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóLadd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€939€S.W.2dÐ Ì  Ð83,€103€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€Ð ¼ ÐÌÒ€Ø ‘ÒÒÀ‘ÒÓ‘Óà Ø àIf€a€statutory€remedy€requires€the€jury€to€make€a€determination€of€theÐ œ!p Ðrequisite€culpability€for€multiple€damages,€the€jury€should€be€required€to€make€thatÐ |#P Ðdetermination€on€its€special€verdict€form.€€Alternatively,€if€the€statute€requires€theÐ \%0 Ðtrial€court€to€assess€whether€multiple€damages€are€warranted,€as€does€theÐ <' ÐTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act,€then€the€issue€of€multiple€damages€shouldÐ )ð! Ðbe€decided€by€the€trial€court,€after€the€jury€renders€an€initial€determination€ofÐ ü*Ð # Ðliability,€regardless€of€whether€the€jury€has€also€awarded€punitive€damagesÐ ,  Ðpursuant€to€a€common€law€claim.€€In€the€same€manner,€if€punitive€damages€areÐ  à Ðsought,€and€the€jury€finds€that€the€defendant€acted€intentionally,€fraudulently,Ð ì À Ðmaliciously€or€recklessly€in€accordance€with€òòHodgesòòóó,€óó833€S.W.2d€at€901,€theÐ Ì  Ðplaintiff€may€then€request€a€hearing€to€calculate€the€amount€of€the€award.€€OnlyÐ ¬€ Ðafter€the€amount€of€punitive€damages€and€multiple€damages€have€been€assessedÐ Œ`  Ðis€the€plaintiff€required€to€make€an€election€between€the€two€types€of€remedies.€Ð l@  ÐÌà@,,)Ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ , Ðà Ø àApplying€the€above„stated€principles€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€we€first€noteÐ  à Ðthat€it€is€difficult€to€sift€through€the€array€of€problems€that€characterize€the€specialÐ ìÀ Ðverdict€form€at€issue€this€case.€€Despite€the€plaintiffððs€assertion€that€the€verdictÐ Ì  Ðform€ð ðcovered€every€contested€issue€that€needed€to€be€presented€to€the€jury,ðð€theÐ ¬ € Ðverdict€form€failed€to€address€at€least€four€of€the€central€issues€in€the€case:Ð Œ"` Ðwhether€the€plaintiffs€or€defendants€breached€the€lease€agreement,€whether€theÐ l$@ Ðdefendants€were€liable€for€negligent€misrepresentation€and€whether€theÐ L&  Ðdefendants€were€liable€for€intentional€misrepresentation.€€Finally,€and€mostÐ ,(  Ðimportantly,€the€special€verdict€form€did€not€require€the€jury€to€specify€whether€itÐ  *à" Ðbased€the€award€of€punitive€damages€upon€a€common€law€claim.Ð ì+À!$ Ðà Ø àTennessee€law€is€well„established€that€litigants€are€entitled€to€have€theirÐ Ì- #& Ðrights€settled€by€a€consistent€and€intelligible€verdict€and€that€verdicts€that€areÐ ¬/€%( Ðinconsistent€and€irreconcilable€cannot€stand.€€òòSeeòòóó€€òòóóMilliken€v.€Smithóó,€218€Tenn.Ð Œ1`'* Ð665,€668,€405€S.W.2d€475,€476€(1966)òò;€òòóóAlabama€Highway€Express,€Inc.€v.€Lusteróó,Ð l3@), Ð51€Tenn.€App.€691,€696,€371€S.W.2d€182,€183€(1963);òò€òòóóPenley€v.€Gloveróó,€30€Tenn.Ð L5 +. ÐApp.€289,€292,€205€S.W.2d€757,€759€(1947).€€Where€a€judgment€is€based€uponÐ ,  Ðinconsistent€findings€by€a€jury€it€is€the€duty€of€the€appellate€court€to€reverse€andÐ  à Ðremand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóMcInturffóó,€565€S.W.2d€at€482òò;óó€òòBerry€v.Ð ì À ÐFosteróó,€199€Tenn.€352,€356,€287€S.W.2d€16,€18€(1955);€òòPenleyóó,€30€Tenn.€App.€atÐ Ì  Ð292,€205€S.W.2d€at€759.Ð ¬€ ÐÌà Ø àA€new€trial€is€also€warranted€when€verdict€forms€are€composed€in€such€aÐ l@  Ðfaulty€fashion€that€they€do€not€address€each€of€the€plaintiffsðð€theories€of€recoveryÐ L  Ðand€do€not€allow€the€jury€to€adequately€respond€to€each€claim.€€Well„settled€lawÐ , Ðrequires€courts€to€construe€the€terms€of€a€verdict€in€a€manner€that€upholds€theÐ  à Ðjuryððs€findings,€if€it€is€able€to€do€so.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóBriscoe€v.€Allisonóó,€200€Tenn.€115,€125„26,Ð ìÀ Ð290€S.W.2d€864,€868€(1956).€€Even€if€a€verdict€is€defective€in€form,€it€is€to€beÐ Ì  Ðenforced€if€it€sufficiently€defines€an€issue€in€such€a€way€as€to€enable€the€court€toÐ ¬ € Ðintelligently€articulate€a€judgment.€€òòSeeòòóó€òòóóArcata€Graphics€Co.€v.€Heidelberg€Harris,Ð Œ"` ÐInc.óó,€874€S.W.2d€522,€527€(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ð l$@ ÐÌà Ø àAfter€closely€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ ,(  Ðerred€in€vacating€only€the€award€of€punitive€damages.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÐ  *à" Ðconcluded€that€the€punitive€damages€award€was€improper€because€punitiveÐ ì+À!$ Ðdamages€are€not€available€under€the€Consumer€Protection€Act,€òòseeòòóó€òòóóLorentzóó,€834Ð Ì- #& ÐS.W.2d€at€320;€òòPatyóó,€756€S.W.2d€at€699.€€This€conclusion€assumes€that€the€òòentireóóÐ ¬/€%( Ðaward€of€compensatory€damages€was€based€on€the€juryððs€finding€of€a€violation€ofÐ Œ1`'* Ðthe€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€While€the€jury€certainly€found€a€violation€of€theÐ l3@), ÐConsumer€Protection€Act,€the€special€verdict€form€did€not€afford€the€jury€anÐ L5 +. Ðopportunity€to€indicate€whether€the€award€of€compensatory€damages€also€aroseÐ ,  Ðfrom€one€of€the€plaintiffsðð€common€law€claims,€such€as€the€claim€for€intentionalÐ  à Ðmisrepresentation,€which€would€support€an€award€of€punitive€damages.€€BecauseÐ ì À Ðof€the€deficient€verdict€form,€essential€information€was€not€elicited€from€the€jury,Ð Ì  Ðand€the€theories€supporting€the€juryððs€award€of€compensatory€damages€cannot€beÐ ¬€ Ðascertained.€€In€our€view,€it€is€speculative€to€conclude,€as€did€the€Court€ofÐ Œ`  ÐAppeals,€that€the€compensatory€award€was€premised€òòsolelyóó€on€a€violation€of€theÐ l@  ÐTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€and€that€the€award€of€punitive€damages€wasÐ L  Ðimproper.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð , ÐÌà Ø àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Appeals€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€instruct€theÐ ìÀ Ðjury€that€punitive€damages€are€not€available€under€the€Act,€and€we€emphasize€thatÐ Ì  Ðthe€trial€court€should€have€made€clear€to€the€jury€that€it€could€not€award€punitiveÐ ¬ € Ðdamages€based€upon€a€violation€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€The€trial€courtððsÐ Œ"` Ðomission€certainly€leaves€open€the€possibility€that€the€jury€wrongly€awardedÐ l$@ Ðpunitive€damages€in€conjunction€with€the€Consumer€Protection€Act€rather€than€inÐ L&  Ðconnection€with€a€common€law€claim€for€recovery.€€€Although€we€cannot€assumeÐ ,(  Ðthat€the€jury€understood€the€relevant€law,€since€it€was€not€properly€instructed,€weÐ  *à" Ðdecline€to€assume€the€inverse,€as€did€the€Court€of€Appeals,€that€the€jury€foundÐ ,  Ðòòonlyóó€a€violation€of€the€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€The€verdict€form€utilized€in€thisÐ  à Ðcase€is€simply€too€ambiguous€and€incomplete€to€support€such€a€conclusion.€Ð ì À ÐWithout€a€clear€record€of€the€theories€supporting€the€juryððs€finding€of€liability,€weÐ Ì  Ðcannot€determine€which€form€of€enhanced€damages€is€warranted€in€this€case.€Ð ¬€ ÐAccordingly,€we€have€no€choice€but€to€remand€this€case€for€a€new€trial€in€whichÐ Œ`  Ðthe€issues€can€be€clearly€articulated€and€a€decisive€verdict€can€be€rendered.€Ð l@  ÐUpon€remand,€the€trial€court€should€make€every€effort€to€comply€with€theÐ L  Ðguidelines€set€forth€in€this€opinion€and€to€facilitate€the€plaintiffsðð€election€ofÐ , Ðremedies€in€the€event€they€become€entitled€to€both€punitive€damages€and€trebleÐ  à Ðdamages€under€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€€€Costs€of€this€appealÐ ìÀ Ðare€taxed€equally€against€the€defendants.Ð Ì  ÐÌÌÌÔ‡X¹XXXrÊÔÓÓà Ø àÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à à_____________________________________Ð 2' Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,Ð (ì  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àJUSTICEÐ þ(Ò! ÐÌÌò òConcur:Ð °+„!$ Ðó óAnderson,€C.€J.Ð œ,p"% ÐBirch,€Holder,€Barker,€JJ.Ô#†XrÊXXX¹Å³#ÔÐ ‚-V#& ÐÌÌÌÌÌà Ø à