ÿWPC÷ <# XUNc %± 0 D· 0`ûUH[b£w@«4ëÿ 0J 0ˆX 0Dà 0T$ 0^x 0hÖ 0r> 0|° B, 0†I 0Ï 1u_ 0dÔ 8 U >@ n~ yì U6e U*› BÅ <ÜC‡v~¦vÓ$˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardHPPCL5G,,,,0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý<à09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular- ù- z{D|}I~D€D‚Dƒ8€–" œ3|xƒ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !" ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman dÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Times 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.Ô€4&Ô€ðððð€47„18„101€to€47„18„5002€(1995).Ô€4ôÔ€€Ì 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ôÔThe€Court€of€Appeals€dismissed€the€suit€against€Martha€Russell,Ïfrom€which€there€is€no€appeal.Ì ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ôÔAlthough€the€Court€later€in€this€opinion€relies€upon€the€decisionÏof€the€District€Court€in€òòKlotz€v.€Underwoodóó,€563€F.Supp.€335,€337€(E.D.ÏTenn.€1982),€òòaffððdóó,€709€F.2d€1504€(6th€Cir.€1983),€we€reach€a€differentÏconclusion€on€this€issue.€€€Ì }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ôÔòòSeeóó€15€U.S.C.€ðð45(a)(1)(1973)(ð ðUnfair€methods€of€competition€inÏcommerce,€and€unfair€or€deceptive€acts€or€practices€in€commerce,€areÏdeclared€unlawful.ðð).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÖ€2ÖÑ  ÑÖ€3ÖÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€4ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€yXXdðdÈ7ÑØ ØÓ&€55XÐd&ÓÞ ÞÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌTAMMY€R.€GANZEVOORT,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(€Sumner€CircuitÌÓ` °‚XÙ ¸ ™XÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ à Òv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à(€Hon.€Thomas€Goodall,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ , Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(€Ô€4&ÔS.€Ct.€No.€01S01„9602„CV„00040Ô€4XÔÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒRICHARD€B.€RUSSELL,€MARTHA€T.€à à(ÌRUSSELL,€AND€JIM€CASSETTY€d/b/aà à(ÌJIM€CASSETTY€REALTY,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendants„Appellees.à àà àà à(ÌÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ , ÒòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Defendants„Appelleesóó:ÌÌMichael€W.€Edwardsà àà àà àà àà àJohn€R.€BradleyÌHendersonvilleà àà àà àà àà àà àœHendersonvilleÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌà àà àÌÔ€4&ÔÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌAFFIRMED;€JUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURTÌREVERSED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓÓÔ€4XÔà àà àà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€reversing€the€trial€court€and€dismissing€anÏaction€for€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act× ƒ6 ××  ×Ïbrought€by€the€purchaser€of€residential€real€property€againstÏthe€seller€and€the€sellerððs€broker.€€The€judgment€of€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€dismissing€the€suit€is€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌÌà àà àà àThe€subject€of€this€suit€is€a€house€and€lot€locatedÏin€Hendersonville,€Tennessee,€which€was€purchased€byÏdefendants€Richard€Russell€and€Martha€Russell€in€1969.€€TheÏproperty€was€occupied€as€a€residence€by€the€Russells€untilÏ1991,€when€Martha€Russell€moved€in€connection€with€theirÍdivorce.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Richard€Russell€and€his€child€continued€to€occupyÏthe€premises€until€a€short€time€prior€to€June3,€1993,€theÏdate€on€which€the€property€was€conveyed€to€the€plaintiff,ÏTammy€R.€Ganzevoort.ÌÌà àà àà àIn€the€latter€part€of€1992,€the€house€and€lot€wereÏlisted€for€sale€with€Jim€Cassetty€Realty,€a€real€estate€agencyÏowned€by€the€defendant€Jim€Cassetty,€who€is€a€broker,€and€hisÏwife,€Pat€Cassetty,€who€is€an€agent.€€The€plaintiff€wasÏrepresented€by€real€estate€agent€Judy€Cassetty.€(Judy€CassettyÏis€not€related€to€Jim€and€Pat€Cassetty.)€€ÌÌà àà àà àOn€February1,€1993,€the€parties€entered€into€aÏcontract€for€the€sale€of€the€property€for€$68,500.€€TheÏclosing€was€set€for€May31,€1993.€€The€sale€was€subject€toÏapproval€by€the€United€States€Department€of€Housing€and€UrbanÏDevelopment€of€a€Federal€Housing€Authority€(F.H.A.)€loan.€ÏF.H.A.€required€an€inspection€by€a€representative€of€thatÏagency,€an€appraisal€by€an€appraiser€approved€by€F.H.A.,€and€aÍprofessional€termite€inspection.€€ÌÌà àà àà àThe€F.H.A.€inspection€revealed€the€need€for€someÏminor€repairs€but€did€not€mention€the€defects€on€which€thisÏsuit€is€based.€€Those€repairs€were€made.€ÌÌà àà àà àThe€real€estate€appraiser€approved€by€F.H.A.Ïinspected€the€property€in€the€process€of€preparing€anÏappraisal.€€During€that€inspection,€he€examined€the€houseððsÏunderpinnings€but€found€no€defects€in€the€floor€joists€or€theÏsubflooring.€€He€only€required€the€purchaser€to€have€knowledgeÏof€a€sump€pump€located€beneath€the€house€and€that€it€be€inÏworking€condition.€€A€copy€of€the€appraiserððs€report€was€givenÏto€the€purchaser€on€May12,€1993,€several€days€prior€to€theÏclosing.€€ÌÌà àà àà àAn€employee€of€a€pest€control€company€made€anÏinspection€of€the€house€on€May25,€1993.€€His€report€showedÏthere€was€no€evidence€of€termite€infestation€or€damage.€€TheÏtermite€inspector€did,€however,€find€water€damage€under€theÏbathroom,€which€he€verbally€reported€to€Jim€Cassetty.€€HeÍtestified:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àà àIt€wasnððt€a€problem€that€I€wouldÏnormally€put€on€this€report€simply€becauseÏit€was€the€deterioration€of€subflooringÏunder€the€bathroom,€under€the€mainÏbathroom€of€the€house.€€And€I€just€tookÏnote€of€that€as€I€was€inspecting€itÏ....ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àWhen€I€went€under€the€bathroom€I€didÏsee€that€the€subflooring€was€damaged,€andÏit€was€obviously€moisture€damage.€€ItÏlooked€to€me,€and€Iððve€looked€at€a€few€ofÏthem,€it€looked€like€a€drain€type€leak.€ÏIt€wasnððt€dripping€water.€€It€looked€likeÏsomething€where€maybe€when€the€bathtub€„„Ïwhen€the€commode€was€flushed€or€theÏbathtub€was€drained€or€the€shower€drain,Ïwhatever,€was€getting€in€there€andÏdamaging€the€wood.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àSince€there€was€no€structural€damage,Ïthatððs€the€reason€I€didnððt€put€it€on€myÏreport.€€But€I€did€report€it€to€theÏCassetty€agency.€€I€do€this€as€a€matter€ofÏcourtesy.€€If€I€find€a€plumbing€leak€orÏanything€like€that€under€a€house€IððllÏusually€tell€the€agent€so€theyððre€aware€ofÏit€and€they€can€get€it€repaired.ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 à€€€€€.€.€.€.Ìà8 àÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€was€obvious€there€had€been€a€leak€thereÏat€some€time€and€that€it€had€damaged€theÏsubflooring,€but€not€the€floor€joistsÏthemselves.€€So€it€wasnððt€structural,€andÏthatððs€why€I€didnððt€put€it€on€my€report.€€ÌÌÓÓÌThe€termite€inspector€told€an€employee€of€the€Cassetty€agency,Ïð ðLook,€thereððs€no€problem€with€.€..€termites.€...€By€theÏway,€though,€tell€Jim€that€some€of€the€subflooring€under€theÏbathroom€has€been€damaged€by€water€and€it€looks€like€a€drainÏleak€because€there€is€no€water€dripping€right€now.ððÌÌà àà àà àApparently,€the€termite€inspection€was€made€whileÏJim€Cassetty€was€out€of€town.€€Jim€Cassetty€testified:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àà àWell,€I€come€back€from€being€out€ofÏtown€and€had€a€report€from€the€Allied€PestÏControl€that€they€had€inspected€theÏproperty€and€issued€the€letter€butÏrecommended€that€the€exterior,€theÏunderside€of€the€property€under€theÏbathroom€be€refurbished,€renovated€andÏstrengthened.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àI€talked€to€[the€termite€inspector]Ïabout€that.€€He€suggest[ed]€laminating€orÏscabbing€„„€I€understand€laminating€asÏbeing€a€plank€on€each€side€of€the€plank€„Ô€4&Ô„Ïor€scabbing€where€you€put€only€one€plankÏon.€€I€informed€[the€termite€inspector]Ïthat€[the€carpenter]€would€do€thatÔ€4ôÔ.Ô€4XÔÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à....€€I€went€out€there€and€looked€atÏthe€area,€and€then€I€hired€a€man€name€ofÏBob€Murdock€to€repair€it.€€Mr.€Russell€wasÏout€of€town,€I€contacted€him,€told€himÏwhat€the€requirement€was,€told€him€thatÍthere€was€going€to€be€some€$300€or€so€toÏmake€the€repairs.€€He€authorized€[me]€toÏgo€ahead€and€have€it€fixed,€and€I€did€so.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à€€€€€....ÓÓÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àà àWell,€it€looked€like€an€old€leak.€€ItÏlooked€like€it€was€something€that€hadÏhappened€five€or€10€years€earlier.€€IÏthought€it€was€just€precautionary.€€UntilÏyou€start€taking€up€carpet€and€rippingÏback€paneling€and€taking€off€all€of€thisÏprotective€paper,€it€wasnððt€visible.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àThe€carpenter€described€the€conditions€found€and€theÏrepairs€made:ÌÌÓÓÔ€1Ôà8 àÔ€4Ôà8 àà8 àthere€was€one€joist€that€was€in€pretty€badÏshape.€€I€put€a€2€x€10€or€a€2€x€12€up€onÏthe€block€wall€on€the€outside€of€theÏhouse,€ran€it€back€3€or€4€feet€on€the€goodÏend€of€the€joist.€€And€then€on€the€floorÏup€there,€it€was€a€little€bit€discolored,ÏI€brought€it€around€on€it.€€It€was€dry€andÏstill€firm€and€intact.€€I€put€some€plywoodÏup€against€that.€€And€the€two€joists€onÏboth€sides€of€it,€I€put€splices€on€them.€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àThen€I€had€to€kind€of€put€pressure€onÏit€to€jack€it€up€to€make€sure€everythingÏwas€up€tight€against€the€floor.€€I€wentÏinside€to€make€sure€there€was€no€cracks€orÏanything€in€the€grout€on€the€tile€in€theÏbathroom.€€Everything€was€intact.€€It€wasÏfine.€€Everything€was€dry.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àPrior€to€closing,€the€sellerððs€agent€told€theÏbuyerððs€agent,€according€to€the€testimony€of€Judy€CassettyÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àð ðThere€was€a€piece€of€wood€replacedÏunderneath€the€house,€but€donððt€worryÏabout€it.€€It€was€just€a€little€minorÏpiece€of€wood.€€Jim€said€underneath€theÏhouse€everything€is€fine.ðð€€And€I€did€tellÏ[the€plaintiff]€that.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àI€said€that€there€is€a€clear€termiteÏletter;€there€was€a€piece€of€woodÏreplaced;€theyððre€saying€everything€isÏfine,€he€went€under€it.€€But€we€did€seeÏthe€sawdust€out€there,€and€I€said,€ð ðWell,Ïthat€must€explain€the€sawdust.ðð€ÌÌÓÓÌPat€Cassettyððs€version€of€the€discussion€was:ÌÌÓÓÔ€1Ôà8 àà8 àÔ€4Ôà8 àà àAs€I€explained€it,€it€was€that€theÏtermite€fellow€had€told€us€that€there€wasÏsome€damage€there.€€He€had€just€„„€he€saidÏthere€was€some€damage€there,€and€weððdÏcheck€it€out€when€we€came€home.€€And€Mr.ÏRussell€wanted€everything€to€be€done€forÏthe€house.€€We€did€what€we€thought€was€theÏproper€thing€to€do.€€The€cost€we€incurredÏwas€put€on€the€closing€statement,€so€I€wasÏtelling€them€that€we€found€this€at€theÏlast€moment€and€that€we€had€corrected€andÏthis€was€the€cost.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àThere€is€no€evidence€that€Russell€had€anyÍinformation€about€the€defects€other€than€that€given€him€byÏCassetty€and€the€carpenter.€€Russell€authorized€the€repairÏwork€recommended€and€agreed€that€the€cost,€estimated€at€$300,Ïbe€charged€to€him€at€the€closing.€€ÌÌà àà àà àEven€though€the€plaintiff€and€her€agent€looked€atÏthe€house€several€times€prior€to€closing,€they€apparently€didÏnot€see€any€indication€that€the€bathroom€floor€was€damaged.€ÏThe€plaintiff€did€not€discuss€the€condition€of€the€floors€withÏthe€seller€prior€to€closing.€€The€plaintiff€testified€that€sheÏrelied€upon€her€personal€inspection,€the€F.H.A.€report,€andÏthe€termite€letter.€€She€does€not€claim€that€she€relied€uponÏany€representation€made€by€the€seller€or€the€sellerððs€agent.€Ìà àÌà àà àà àAfter€all€the€reports€required€by€F.H.A.€had€beenÏfiled,€that€agency€issued€its€approval€of€the€house€asÏcollateral€for€the€plaintiffððs€loan.€€ÌÌà àà àà àAfter€the€sale€had€been€closed,€the€plaintiffÏdiscovered,€upon€removing€the€carpet€in€the€dining€area€nearÏthe€bathroom,€that€a€section€of€the€hardwood€floor,Íapproximately€3€feet€by€3€feet€in€area,€was€rotten.€€FurtherÏinspection€revealed€that€water€leaking€from€the€shower€andÏcommode€had€caused€extensive€damage€to€the€bathroom€floorÏwhere€the€repairs€had€been€made€and€also€to€the€floor€andÏfloor€joists€under€the€adjoining€dining€area.ÌÌà àà àà àAn€engineer€engaged€by€the€plaintiff€described€theÏcondition€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àà àThe€carpet€that€had€gotten€wet€inÏ[the]€dining€room€had€been€pulled€back€andÏthere€was€a€hardwood€floor€underneath€theÏcarpet.€€Within€3€or€4€feet€of€the€wallÏthat€hardwood€was€very€badly€damaged,€inÏsome€cases€completely€decomposed;€so€theÏdamage€had€been€going€on€for€some€time.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àThere€was€no€evidence,€in€theÏbathroom,€of€any€deterioration€at€thatÏtime,€from€looking€inside€the€bathroom;Ïbut€going€underneath€the€house€in€theÏcrawl€space€the€floor€joist€had€beenÏdamaged€by€the€water.€€The€plywoodÏsubfloor€had€completely€delaminated,€theÏbonding€between€the€layers€of€the€plywoodÏwere€separated.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àThe€floor€joists€were€very€wet€andÏhad€decayed€somewhat;€and€someone€had€goneÏin€at€some€previous€time,€I€donððt€knowÏwhen,€and€tried€to€repair€the€floor€joistÏby€splicing€four€pieces€of€lumber€onto€theÏsides€of€the€joist.ÌÌÓÓÌà8 àWhen€asked€by€the€judge€whether€the€F.H.A.€inspector€shouldÏhave€discovered€this€problem,€the€engineer€responded,ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 à...€The€rotted€hardwood€was€covered€byÏcarpet,€wall„to„wall€carpet,€and€Iððm€sureÏthe€floor€would€have€felt€a€little€soft;Ïbut€that€would€have€been€a€prettyÏextensive€inspection,€to€go€around€[and]Ïpoke€your€fingers€along€the€walls.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àThe€tile€in€the€bathroom€is€notÏcracked,€so€there€wouldnððt€have€been€aÏclue€in€there.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àà àUnderneath€the€house€would€have€beenÏthe€only€hope€of€finding€this€thing,€andÏeven€though€there€was€foil€paper€coveringÏthe€plywood,€the€foil€does€not€cover€theÏfloor€joist,€and€there€was€evidence€ofÏwater€stain€and€mildew€on€the€joist;€thatÏwould€have€been€enough€to€at€least€suspectÏthere€was€a€leakage€problem.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àDefendant€Jim€Cassetty€estimated€the€damaged€areaÏcould€be€repaired€for€not€more€than€$800.€€The€plaintiffððsÏexpert€submitted€a€bid€to€repair€the€damaged€portion€forÏ$7,000.€€à àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àThe€trial€court€made€no€specific€findings€of€fact.€ÍIt€ruled€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€Court€is€convinced€that€the€DefendantsÏwere€guilty€of€unfair€or€deceptive€acts€orÏpractices€and€violated€the€provisions€ofÏT.C.A.€ðð€47„18„104(b)(27).€ÓÓ.€.€.ÓÓÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€conclusion€thatÏthe€€defendants€Russell€and€Jim€Cassetty€were€guilty€of€unfairÏor€deceptive€acts.€€It€held€that€they€ð ðengaged€in€a€deceptiveÏact€by,€either€intentionally€or€negligently,€covering€over€aÏserious€defect€in€the€house.ðð€€That€court€concluded,€however,Ïthat€the€deceptive€act€was€not€the€cause€of€any€damages€andÏreversed€the€judgment€entered€by€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌÌà àà àà àThe€standard€of€review€is€stated€in€Rule€13(d)€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àUnless€otherwise€required€by€statute,Ïreview€of€findings€of€fact€by€the€trialÏcourt€in€civil€actions€shall€be€de€novoÍupon€the€record€of€the€trial€court,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€finding,€unless€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.ÌÌÌÌÓÓWhen€the€trial€judge€has€failed€to€make€specific€findings€ofÏfact,€this€Court€will€review€the€record€to€determine€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€€òòKemp€v.€Thurmondóó,€521ÏS.W.2d€806,€808€(Tenn.€1975).€€Furthermore,€ð ðthe€constructionÏof€the€statute€and€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€is€aÏquestion€of€law.ðð€€òòBeare€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Dept€of€Revenueóó,€858ÏS.W.2d€906,€907€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€scope€of€review€forÏquestions€of€law€is€de€novo€upon€the€record€of€the€chanceryÏcourt€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòUnion€Carbide€Corp.Ïv.€Huddlestonóó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌÌà àà àà àResolution€of€the€issues€presented€requires€aÏconstruction€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€InÏconstruing€the€statute,€this€Court€must€ascertain€and€giveÏeffect€to€the€legislative€intent€and€the€ordinary€meaning€ofÍthe€language€of€the€statute.€€òòCarson€Creek€Vacation€Resorts,ÏInc.€v.€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€1993).€ÏAdditionally,€ð ð[t]he€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€is€toÏbe€liberally€construed€to€protect€consumers€and€others€fromÏthose€who€engage€in€deceptive€acts€or€practices.ðð€€ÌòòMorris€v.€Mackððs€Used€Carsóó,€824€S.W.2d€538,€540€(Tenn.€1992);ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„102(2)€(1995).ÌÌà àà àà àThe€Act€was€enacted€ð ðto€protect€consumers€andÏlegitimate€business€enterprises€from€those€who€engage€inÏunfair€or€deceptive€acts€or€practices€in€the€conduct€of€anyÏtrade€or€commerce€...,€[t]o€encourage€and€promote€theÏdevelopment€of€fair€consumer€practices;€[and]€...€[t]oÏdeclare€and€to€provide€for€civil€legal€means€for€maintainingÏethical€standards€of€dealing€between€persons€engaged€inÏbusiness€and€the€consuming€public€to€the€end€that€good€faithÏdealings€between€buyers€and€sellers€at€all€levels€of€commerceÏbe€had€in€this€state€...ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„102.ÌÌà àà àà àThe€Act€authorizes€a€private€cause€of€action:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà0 àà àà8 àà8 àAny€person€who€suffers€an€ascertainable€lossÏof€money€or€property,€real,€personal,€orÏmixed,€or€any€other€article,€commodity,€orÏthing€of€value€wherever€situated,€as€a€resultÏof€the€use€or€employment€by€another€person€ofÏan€unfair€or€deceptive€act€or€practiceÏdeclared€to€be€unlawful€by€this€part,€mayÏbring€an€action€individually€to€recover€actualÏdamages.€ÌÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„109(a)(1)€(1995).€ÌÌà àà àà àThis€Court€has€discussed€issues€under€the€Act€inÏonly€three€cases.€€In€òòMorris€v.€Mackððs€Used€Carsóó,€824€S.W.2dÏ538€(Tenn.€1992),€the€seller€sold€the€purchaser€a€truck,€ð ðasÏis.ðð€€The€seller€knew€it€was€a€reconstructed€vehicle.€€BeingÏreconstructed€reduced€the€vehicleððs€fair€market€value€30€to€50Ïpercent.€€The€sellerððs€defense€was€that€the€disclaimerÏcontained€in€the€bill€of€sale€protected€it€from€liabilityÏunder€the€Act.€€This€Court€ruled€that€the€Uniform€CommercialÏCode€(U.C.C.)€imposes€an€obligation€of€good€faith€in€theÏperformance€of€every€contract€which€may€not€be€disclaimed,€andÏthat€disclaimers€permitted€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„2„316€doÏnot€defeat€separate€causes€of€action€under€the€ConsumerÏProtection€Act.€€òòIdóó.€at€539.€€The€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àTo€allow€the€seller€here€to€avoidÏliability€for€unfair€or€deceptive€acts€orÏpractices€by€disclaiming€contractualÏwarranties€under€the€U.C.C.€wouldÏcontravene€the€broad€remedial€intent€ofÏthe€Consumer€Protection€Act.ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€540.€€ÌÌà àà àà àIn€òòQuality€Auto€Parts€Co.€v.€Bluff€City€Buick€Co.óó,Ï876€S.W.2d€818,€819€(Tenn.€1994),€the€Court€concluded€that€itÏdid€not€need€to€reach€the€issue€of€whether€consumer€protectionÏlaws€apply€to€disputes€arising€in€the€context€of€employer„employee€relationships.€€The€Court€found€that€the€allegedÏfalse€statements€about€the€plaintiff€did€not€disparage€theÏquality€of€the€plaintiffððs€services€and€therefore€would€notÏsupport€a€claim€under€the€Act.ÌÌà àà àà àIn€òòPursell€v.€First€American€National€Bankóó,€937ÏS.W.2d€838,€839€(Tenn.€1996),€the€Court€found€that€theÏdefendant€bankððs€breach€of€an€agreement€to€return€property€inÏa€repossession€dispute,€did€not€form€the€basis€of€an€actionÏunder€the€Act€because€the€actions€of€the€bank€did€not€affectÍthe€conduct€of€any€ð ðtrade€or€commerce.ðð€€The€Court€noted,ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àà àThis€holding€is€confined€to€the€factsÏand€circumstances€of€this€case,€and€we€doÏnot,€by€this€Opinion,€generally€exemptÏbanking€activities€from€the€TennesseeÏConsumer€Protection€Act.ÌÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€at€842.€ÌÌà àà àà àThe€Act€is€applicable€to€the€transaction€in€thisÏcase.€€The€plaintiff€is€a€consumer€as€defined€in€the€Act,€theÏpurchase€of€real€property€is€covered€by€the€Act,€and€theÏproperty€was€offered€for€sale€by€a€realtor€in€the€course€ofÏthe€real€estate€trade.€€The€term€ð ðconsumerðð€is€defined€in€theÏAct,€and€in€pertinent€part€states,€ð ðððConsumerðð€means€anyÏnatural€person€who€seeks€or€acquires€by€purchase€...€anyÏ...€property€....€real,€personal€or€mixed€....ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€47„18„103(2)(1995).€€The€Act€defines€ð ðtradeðð€andÏð ðcommerceðð€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:€€ð ðððTrade,ððÏððcommerce,ðð€or€ððconsumer€transactionðð€means€the€...€offeringÏfor€sale€...€of€any€...€property€....€real,€personal,Ïor€mixed€....ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„103(9)(1995).€ÍConsequently,€the€complaint€states€a€cause€of€action€againstÏthe€defendant€Jim€Cassetty.€€ÌÌà àà àà àHowever,€whether€the€Act€is€applicable€to€the€saleÏby€the€defendant€Russell,€who€is€not€generally€engaged€in€theÏsale€of€real€property,€is€less€clear.€€Two€of€the€statedÏpurposes€of€the€Act€are€to€maintain€ð ðethical€standards€ofÏdealing€between€òòpersons€engaged€in€businessóó€and€the€consumingÏpublic,ðð€and€to€protect€consumers€and€legitimate€businessÏenterprises€from€those€who€engage€in€unfair€or€deceptive€actsÏor€practices€òòin€the€conduct€of€any€trade€or€commerceóó.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðððð47„18„102(2)€&€(4)€(1995)€(emphasis€added).€ÏAlthough€this€language€does€not€explicitly€exclude€from€theÏAct€sellers€not€in€the€business€of€selling€property€as€ownersÏor€brokers,€a€reasonable€construction€is€that€they€are€notÏincluded.× ƒ8 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àà àSome€consumer€protection€acts€found€in€otherÍjurisdictions,€clearly€apply€only€to€persons€who€regularlyÏsolicit€or€engage€in€consumer€transactions.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòIadanzaÏv.€Matheróó,€820€F.€Supp.€1371,€1381€(D.€Utah€1993).€€Ô€1Ô€Ô€4ÔTheÏmajority€of€jurisdictions€in€which€real€estate€sales€areÏgoverned€by€the€act,€have€held€that€persons€making€an€isolatedÏsale€of€their€home€are€not€covered€by€the€Act.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àà àA€number€of€state€courts€have€ruledÏthat,€even€where€real€estate€sales€areÏgenerally€covered,€the€isolated€sale€ofÏreal€estate€by€a€nonmerchant€is€notÏcovered.€€This€should€be€viewed€as€anÏattempt€to€keep€consumer„to„consumer€salesÏtransactions€outside€the€[unfair€andÏdeceptive€acts€and€practices]€statuteððsÏscope,€and€not€an€attempt€to€exclude€allÏreal€estate€practices€from€the€stateððsÏcoverage.€€In€particular,€even€though€aÏcourt€may€dismiss€the€homeowner€as€a€...Ïdefendant,€the€case€against€theÏhomeownerððs€realtor€and€termite€inspectorÏshould€go€forward.ÌÌÓÓÌJonathan€Sheldon,€òòUnfair€and€Deceptive€Acts€and€Practicesóó,€51Ï(3d€ed.€1991)€(footnotes€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòJackson€v.€ManasquanÏSav.€Bankóó,€638€A.2d€165,€170€(N.J.€Super.€L.€1993);€òòBhatti€v.ÏBucklandóó,€400€S.E.2d€440,€444€(N.C.€1991)€(ð ðAssuming€that€aÏððhomeownerððs€exceptionðð€exists,€its€application€is€limited€toÍan€individual€involved€in€the€sale€of€his€or€her€ownÏresidence.ðð);€òòRobertson€v.€Boydóó,€363€S.E.2d€672,€676€(N.C.ÏApp.€1988)(ð ðprivate€parties€engaged€in€the€sale€of€aÏresidence,€were€not€involved€in€trade€or€commerce€and€cannotÏbe€held€liable€under€the€statute€.€.€.€[realty€company€andÏtermite€inspector]€were€engaged€in€trade€or€commerce€withinÏthe€meaningðð€of€the€statute);€òòDiBernardo€v.€Mosleyóó,€502€A.2dÏ1166,€1168€(N.J.€Super.€A.D.€1986)€(ð ðthe€Act€was€intended€as€aÏresponse€only€to€the€public€harm€resulting€from€ððtheÏdeception,€misrepresentation€and€unconscionable€practicesÏengaged€in€by€professional€sellers€seeking€mass€distributionÏof€many€types€of€consumer€goodsðð€...€and€not€to€the€isolatedÏsale€of€a€single€family€residence€by€its€ownerðð);€òòYoung€v.ÏJoyceóó,€351€A.2d€857,€860€(Del.€Supr.€1975)(ð ðwe€do€not€beliveÏthat€the€isolated€sale€of€real€estate€by€its€owner€.€.€.Ïconstitutes€the€conduct€of€trade€or€commerceðð).€€TheÏconclusion€is€that€the€Act€is€not€applicable€to€the€seller€inÏthis€case.€€ÌÌà àà àà àThe€next€question€is€whether€the€evidence€supportsÏthe€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€defendant€CassettyÍcommitted€an€unfair€or€deceptive€act€or€practice€within€theÏmeaning€of€the€Act.€€The€claim€in€this€case€is€based€on€theÏfollowing€provisions€of€the€Act:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 à.€.€.€the€following€unfair€or€deceptiveÏacts€or€practices€affecting€the€conduct€ofÏany€trade€or€commerce€are€declared€to€beÏunlawful€and€in€violation€of€this€part:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(27)€Engaging€in€any€other€act€or€practiceÏwhich€is€deceptive€to€the€consumer€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„104(b)€(1995).€€The€Act€does€notÏdefine€the€terms€ð ðunfairðð€and€ð ðdeceptive,ðð€and€the€Court€hasÏnot€heretofore€defined€these€terms.€€Ô€1ÔÌÌÔ€4Ôà àà àà àThe€Act€states€that€in€determining€the€statuteððsÏintended€meaning€the€court€should€look€to€opinions€concerningÏa€similar€provision€in€the€Federal€Trade€Commission€Act.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„115€(1995).€€The€federal€courts€haveÏnoted€that€the€terms€ð ðunfairðð€and€ð ðdeceptiveðð€are€incapable€ofÏclose€definition:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà8 àIt€is€important€to€note€the€generality€ofÏthese€standards€of€illegality;€theÏproscriptions€in€ðð5€are€flexible,€ð ðto€beÏdefined€with€particularity€by€the€myriadÏof€cases€from€the€field€of€business.ððÌÌÓÓÌòòFederal€Trade€Comm.€v.€Colgate„Palmolive€Co.óó,€380€U.S.€374,Ï384„85,€85€S.Ct.€1035,€1042,€13€L.€Ed.€904(1965)(quotingÏòòFederal€Trade€Comm.€v.€Motion€Picture€Advertising€Service€Co.óó,Ï344€U.S.€392,€394,€73€S.Ct.€361,€363,€97€L.€Ed.€426€(1953)).€ÏWithout€limiting€the€broad€scope€of€the€Act,€the€followingÏdefinitions€found€in€decisions€from€other€jurisdictionsÏclearly€are€applicable€to€this€case.€€The€Supreme€Court€ofÏVermont€has€held€that€ð ða€ððdeceptive€act€or€practiceðð€is€aÏmaterial€representation,€practice€or€omission€likely€toÏmislead€a€reasonable€consumer.ðð€€òòBisson€v.€Wardóó,€628€A.2dÏ1256,€1261€(Vt.€1993).€€A€similar€definition€is€found€inÏòòConnor€v.€Merrill€Lynch€Realty,€Inc.óó,€581€N.E.2d€196,€202Ï(Ill.€App.€1991):€€ð ða€deceptive€practice€is€the€concealment,Ïsuppression€or€omission€of€any€material€fact,€with€intent€thatÏothers€rely€upon€the€concealment,€suppression€or€omission€ofÏsuch€material€fact.ðð€€ÌÌÔ€1Ôà àà àà àÔ€4ÔIn€òòKlotz€v.€Underwoodóó,€563€F.Supp.€335€(E.D.€Tenn.Ï1982),€òòaffððdóó,€709€F.2d€1504€(6th€Cir.€1983),€the€subject€ofÏthe€sale€was€an€old€house€to€which€later€additions€had€beenÏmade.€€Subsequent€to€the€sale,€the€purchasers€discovered,€byÏremoving€a€portion€of€a€wall,€water€damage€to€members€andÏappurtenances€of€the€house.€€The€District€Court€held€that€theÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€imposes€no€liability€whereÏthe€seller€had€no€knowledge€of€the€hidden€defects€and€where€anÏinspection€by€the€purchaser€would€reveal€the€same€informationÏknown€by€the€seller.ÌÌà àà àà àBrokers,€agents€and€other€professional€sellers€ofÏreal€property€have€knowledge€and€information€superior€both€inÏquantity€and€quality€to€that€of€an€average€residentialÏpurchaser€regarding€factors€and€conditions€that€affect€theÏvalue€of€the€property€they€are€offering€for€sale.€€They€areÏobligated€by€the€Act€to€exercise€good€faith€in€disclosing€toÏprospective€purchasers€material€facts€affecting€the€value€ofÏthe€property€known€to€them€and€not€known€to€or€reasonablyÏascertainable€by€a€prospective€purchaser.€€The€extent€of€thisÍduty,€however,€will€be€determined€by€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€each€situation,€including€the€property€andÏthe€parties,€and€the€generally€accepted€professional€standardsÏin€the€trade.€€The€Act€does€not€impose€strict€liability.€€NorÏdoes€it€impose€upon€realtors€duties€beyond€those€which€areÏgenerally€accepted€in€the€business€as€good€practice.€€TheÏprovisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€66„5„201€to€66„5„210€(Supp.Ï1996)€(residential€property€disclosures),€though€notÏdeterminative,€may€be€relevant€in€cases€arising€after€itsÏenactment€in€1994.€€Likewise,€the€provisions€of€the€RealÏEstate€Brokers€License€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€62„13„101€toÏ62„13„322€(1990€&€Supp.€1996),€may€also€be€relevant€inÏdetermining€good€practice.€€€ÌÌà àà àà àTested€by€this€standard,€the€evidence€does€not€showÏthat€the€defendant€realtor€is€guilty€of€unfair€or€deceptiveÏacts.€€The€realtor€undertook€to€bring€the€house€within€F.H.A.Ïrequirements.€€Other€small€deficiencies€noted€by€the€F.H.A.Ïinspector€were€repaired.€€When€advised€by€the€termiteÏinspector€of€the€damage€under€the€bathroom,€the€realtorÏengaged€a€carpenter€and€instructed€him,€with€the€ownerððsÍapproval,€to€repair€the€damage€found.€€This€repair€was€madeÏknown€to€the€purchaserððs€agent,€although€she€apparently€tookÏlittle€note€of€it.€€None€of€the€parties€were€aware€that€theÏwater€damage€had€extended€to€the€dining€area.€€That€damage€wasÏnot€noted€by€the€F.H.A.€inspector€or€the€independentÏappraiser,€both€of€whom€inspected€the€premises.€€Even€theÏexpert€employed€by€the€plaintiff€testified€that€finding€theÏdamage€would€have€required€one€to€ð ðpoke€your€fingers€along€theÏwalls,ðð€and€that€there€was€no€ð ðclueðð€to€the€damage€in€theÏbathroom.€€He€stated€that€only€under€the€house€was€thereÏenough€indication€to€suspect€a€leakage€problem.€€The€damageÏwas€essentially€hidden€from€all€inspections€except€that€whichÏoccurred€after€the€sale€with€the€removal€of€the€floor€coveringÏin€the€affected€area.€€Apparently,€none€of€the€several€personsÏwhose€professional€duty€was€to€examine€the€premises€felt€thatÏremoval€of€the€carpeting€was€appropriate.€€Those€personsÏincluded€the€F.H.A.€inspector,€the€independent€appraiser,€theÏtermite€inspector,€and€three€realtors.€€ÌÌà àà àà àThe€conclusion€is€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€finding€that€the€defendant€Cassetty€is€guilty€ofÍan€unfair€or€deceptive€act€within€the€meaning€of€the€Act.ÌÌà àà àà àFor€these€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€reversing€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€the€case€isÏremanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Sumner€County.ÌÌà àà àà àCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€plaintiff.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.J.,€and€Drowota,€J.