WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D b  UH 0DH 0J 0T 0^* 0h 0r 0|b 0 0d 1u 0di BU>U*(U6R D3 B)?DCh 0@ AMU*8bYq9v~v AOT 0Di D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($  P{E\eӀD 5/5M - Stand3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  - -< ,9Z 0Courier (W1) Regular(3$ !  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Times<  9p`(Courier New z !  #d#&  )  ####'dxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("$    -,C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#&  //   YYY FILED/XAugust25,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   O !  #d#&   $       ((T.C.A.4718104(b)(27)( Engaginginanyotheractorpracticewhichisdeceptivetotheconsumerortoanyotherperson.). / !#d#&   $       ((NordidcongressdefinethosetermsintheFederalTradeCommissionAct,onwhichtheTennesseeactispatterned.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &      \RA'\ &d&&''Xd&  \RA'\( 7XXdd7  )          August25,1997         FORPUBLICATION@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE̜@ ATNASHVILLE̛̜TAMMYR.GANZEVOORT,  )      ) PlaintiffAppellant, ) SumnerCircuit      )v.      ) Hon.ThomasGoodall,Judge      )   , RICHARDB.RUSSELL,  ) S.Ct.No.01S019602CV00040̜MARTHAT.RUSSELL,AND  )R.0,A1-j|`  `@RJIMCASSETTYd/b/aJIM  )CASSETTYREALTY,   )      ) DefendantsAppellees. )      ` ` XORDERONPETITIONTOREHEAR󀀀     Theplaintiffappellanthasfiledapetitiontorehear;theAttorneyGeneral,onbehalfoftheState,seekspermissiontojoininthepetitionandfileanamicusbrief,whichapplicationsaregranted. ThepetitionertakesissuefirstwiththeessentialpremiseoftheCourtsdecision,thatthestandardsfordetermininganunfairordeceptiveactunderthecatchallprovisionoftheAct 1   areflexibleandcanbedefinedwithparticularityonlyinthecontextofthe myriadofcasesfromthefieldofbusiness.Supraat_____.[SlipOp.p.19.] TheTennesseeLegislaturedidnotdefine unfairand deceptiveintheConsumerProtectionAct. 2   ׀Whereaparticularactorpracticehasnotbeenspecificallyaddressedinthestatute,thedefinitionofthosetermsarelefttothecourtsonacasebycasebasis.SeeJeffreyL.Reed,TheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct:AnOverview,58Tenn.L.Rev.455,460(1991).TheconclusionthatthesamedefinitiondoesnotapplyineverycaseisconsistentwiththevaryingprovisionsoftheActdefiningunfairanddeceptiveactsinparticularsituations.Tenn.CodeAnn.4718104(b)(126)and(2830).Areviewoftheseprovisionsshowsthatthoughinmostsituationsactionablefaultisnotaprerequisitetoliability,inothers,knowledgeisaprerequisite,andinstillothers,intenttodeceiveisthestandard.Consequently,thepetitionerssecondcontention,thatundertheActproofofdeceptionisneverdependentuponevidenceofintentorknowledge,iscontrarytotheplainlanguageoftheAct. TheCourtsopinioninthiscasedefinesthestandardapplicabletothiscaseandothersimilarcasesinwhichthegeneraldeteriorationandnonapparentdefectsincidenttothenatureandageofthepropertybeingsoldordinarilyarereflectedinthepurchaseprice,andinwhichthepurchaserisgivenalltheinformationregardingtheconditionofthepropertyknownbythepersonchargedandnotapparenttothepurchaser.Theactsoftherealtorinthiscasewerenotdeceptiveorunfair. TheCourt,therefore,rejectsthepetitionerscontentionthattheActestablishesasinglestandardapplicableinallcasesfordetermininganunfairordeceptiveactorpractice.TheCourtaffirmsthestandardsetforthintheopinionasbeingtheappropriatestandardforthiscaseandsimilarcases. Thepetitiontorehearisdenied. Costsaretaxedtothepetitioner.      __________________________      Reid,J.Concur:DrowotaandBirch,JJ.