ÿWPC …# VU:a %› 04¡4Õéøw@ 0x@ 0D¸ 0Jü 0TF 0^š 0hø 0r` 0|Ò 0†N 0Ô 1ud U,Ù 0dU,iU *• B¿B)ÜDC AMH'•N¼ D3 ó='0 0@Wv~—vÓ AOèÆ7 0Dý D/A Bp˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Óz!tÔôÔô3|xŸ  ‹ EŒ  Ž I D ‘ E’ “ Ó€Ÿ (((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òSeptember€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝDr.€Glazer€relies€upon€òòPeregrine€Homes€v.€Jefferson€Bank€and€Trust€Coóó.,€713ÏP.2d€à à1342,€1344€(Colo.€App.€1985)€for€this€definition.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThese€statements€were€denied€by€the€bank€in€its€answer.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€fact€that€the€trial€court€ordered€FANB€to€produce€copies€of€all€canceledÏchecks€à àpayable€to€Dr.€Glazer€does€not€mean€that€the€bank€was€under€a€legalÏduty€to€à àproduce€the€checks€before€the€order€was€handed€down.€€Under€RuleÏ26.02€Tenn.€à àR.€Civ.€P.,€a€party€may€obtain€discovery€of€any€material€that€is€notÏprivileged€and€is€à àrelevant€to€the€subject€matter€of€the€pending€action.€That€aÏdocument€is€à àà àdiscoverable€under€Rule€26.02€obviously€does€not€mean€that€theÏopposing€party€has€à àa€separate€and€independent€legal€duty€to€make€the€documentÏavailable.€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ñ , ÑÑ ` ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ7€­XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€X°d&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSON€ÌÌÌÌÌLOUIS€GLAZER,€M.D.,à àà àà à)à àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àSHELBY€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌœFIRST›€AMERICAN€NATIONALà àà à)à àHon.€D.J.€œAlissandratos,›ÏChancellorÌBANK,à àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02S01„9512„CH„00131à àÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appelleeóó:à àà àà àòòFor€Defendant„Appellantóó:ÌÌHenry€L.€Kleinà àà àà àà àGary€L.€JewelÌApperson,€Crump,€Duzane€à àà àJewel€&€RichÌ&€Maxwellà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,ÏTennesseeÌMemphis,€Tennessee̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|½g` Å `€€Lß›ÌÌà@ àÔ€#„ÔÌÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àœÌCOURT›€OF€APPEALS€œREVERSED.€€›à àà àà àà àœà àDROWOTA,›€œJ.Ç›ÓÓ€€à àIn€this€case€involving€a€claim€for€conversion€under€ðð€47„3„419€of€theÏTennessee€Uniform€Commercial€Code€(UCC),€the€defendant,€First€AmericanÏNational€Bank€(FANB),€appeals€from€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€affirmance€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€judgment€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€Louis€Glazer,€M.D.€€The€sole€issue€for€ourÏdetermination€is€whether€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€consequential€or€specialÏdamages€to€Glazer€was€proper€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€€For€the€reasons€thatÏfollow,€we€hold€that€the€award€was€not€proper.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€is€reversed.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€relatively€straightforward.€€In€early€1989€theÏplaintiff€Louis€Glazer,€an€anesthesiologist€practicing€in€Memphis,€opened€multipleÏbusiness€accounts€with€the€defendant€FANB.€€One€of€those€was€a€businessÏchecking€account,€and€Dr.€Glazer€was€the€only€person€listed€on€the€signatureÏcard€as€having€authorization€to€sign€checks€on€that€account.€€ÌÌà àIn€March€1989,€Dr.€Glazer€hired€Beverly€Brinkley€to€process€checks€writtenÏby€insurance€companies€on€behalf€of€his€patients.€€Brinkleyððs€duties€includedÏreceiving€the€checks€as€they€came€into€the€office;€œupdating€the›€patient€records€onÏthe€office€œcomputer€so€as€to€reflect€the€payment€received;›€and€then€depositing€theÏchecks,€which€were€always€made€payable€to€Dr.€Glazer,€in€his€business€accountsÏat€FANB.€€Occasionally,€Brinkley€would€also€cash€checks€written€on€Dr.€GlazerððsÏpersonal€account€œin€order€to›€provide€him€with€cash€for€his€weekly€expenses.€ÏBrinkley€was,€therefore,€required€to€go€to€the€bank€on€almost€a€daily€basis.€Ìà àÌà àIn€the€fall€of€1989,€Brinkley€began€embezzling€funds€from€Dr.€Glazer€byÏcashing€the€insurance€checks€and€keeping€the€money€for€herself.€€Typically,ÏBrinkley€would€accomplish€this€by€simply€forging€Dr.€Glazerððs€signature€as€anÏendorsement€on€the€checks€before€she€approached€the€tellerððs€window,€althoughÏsometimes€the€FANB€tellers€cashed€the€checks€without€any€endorsementÏwhatsoever.€€After€cashing€an€insurance€check,€Brinkley€would€then€hide€herÏwrongdoing€by€deleting€the€corresponding€patient€data€from€the€office€computer.€ÏShe€would€also€destroy€the€paper€index€cards€that€served€as€back„up€files.ÌÌà àIn€this€manner,€Brinkley€was€able€to€embezzle€in€excess€of€$100,000€overÏalmost€a€€two„year€period.€€Perhaps€because€of€their€familiarity€with€Brinkley,Ïduring€this€period€the€bank€employees€never€verified€the€purportedÏendorsements€on€the€checks€against€Dr.€Glazerððs€signature€card;€nor€did€theyÏever€contact€his€office€to€inquire€about€Brinkleyððs€authority€to€cash€the€checks.€€€InÏfact,€there€is€no€indication€that€anyone€at€the€bank€ever€questioned€BrinkleyððsÏauthority€to€cash€the€insurance€checks€in€any€way.€€ÌÌà àIn€February€1991,€Dr.€Glazer€discovered€that€some€insurance€checks€wereÏmissing€and,€suspecting€someone€in€his€office,€hired€a€detective€agency€toÏinvestigate€the€matter.€€The€ensuing€investigation€focussed€on€Brinkley.€€After€itÏbecame€clear€that€a€substantial€number€of€these€checks€were€missing,€and€thatÏBrinkley€was€the€likely€culprit,€Dr.€Glazer€and€his€wife€attempted€to€enlist€the€aidÏof€FANB€in€obtaining€copies€of€the€checks€cashed€by€Brinkley.€€The€bank,Ïhowever,€refused€to€provide€any€assistance.€€After€the€Glazers€had€obtained€aÏstatement€from€Brinkley€admitting€her€involvement,€they€again€asked€the€bank€forÍhelp€in€tracking€down€the€checks.€€The€bank€again€refused.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àBecause€Brinkleyððs€scheme€had€left€his€records€in€a€state€of€disarray,€andÏbecause€of€the€bankððs€refusal€to€provide€assistance,€Dr.€Glazer€was€forced€toÏcompletely€reconstruct€his€records.€€That€task,€which€took€several€months€andÏrequired€Dr.€Glazer€to€hire€extra€personnel,€involved€reviewing€all€medicalÏrecords€of€the€surgery€center€where€he€rendered€anesthesia€services,€œsendingÏmany€letters›€to€insurance€companies€requesting€copies€of€checks€written€to€him,Ïand€comparing€all€this€data€to€the€office€computer€records.€€€It€was,€needless€toÏsay,€a€tedious€and€expensive€undertaking.ÌÌà àDr.€Glazer€subsequently€brought€suit€against€the€bank€in€the€ShelbyÏCounty€Chancery€Court.€€In€the€first€claim€set€forth€in€the€complaint,€he€allegedÏthat€FANB,€by€paying€the€checks€over€the€forged€endorsements,€converted€hisÏproperty€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„3„419.€€The€complaint€alsoÏincluded€a€claim€alleging€that€FANB€breached€its€duty,€as€set€forth€in€theÏdepositary€agreement,€by€failing€to€cooperate€in€determining€the€number€andÏamount€of€checks€cashed€over€the€forged€endorsements.€€Dr.€Glazer€requestedÍconsequential€damages€on€this€latter€claim€for€the€expenses€he€incurred€inÏreconstructing€his€records.€€Ìà8 àÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€chancellor€found€that€although€the€actionsÏof€the€bank€tellers€and€manager€were€ð ðhonestðð€throughout€the€fraudulent€scheme,Ïthe€bank€nevertheless€failed€to€act€in€a€commercially€reasonable€manner€asÏrequired€by€ðð€47„3„419(3).€€Therefore,€it€awarded€Dr.€Glazer€$135,780.35€„„€theÏface€amount€of€all€checks€that€were€introduced€into€evidence,€plus€pre„judgmentÏinterest.€€The€chancellor€also€awarded€$100,073.11€in€consequential€damagesÏfor€the€amount€Dr.€Glazer€expended€on€reconstructing€his€records€and€onÏattorneyððs€fees,€explaining€€that:€ð ðafter€plaintiff€discovered€the€scheme€to€defraudÏon€the€part€of€his€employee,€defendant€bank€failed€and€refused€to€cooperate€inÏhelping€determine€the€various€checks€that€were€the€subject€of€the€scheme€...ðð€€€ÌÌà àFANB€appealed€from€this€judgment€to€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€That€courtÏaffirmed€the€chancellorððs€ruling€on€the€conversion€claim€in€all€respects;€it€alsoÏapproved€the€chancellorððs€decision€to€award€consequential€damages.€€However,Íthe€Court€reduced€the€amount€of€consequential€damages€awarded€by€theÏchancellor,€concluding€that€attorneyððs€fee€component€of€the€award€was€notÏproper.€€We€granted€FANBððs€Rule€11,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€application€for€the€limitedÏpurpose€of€addressing€to€what€extent€consequential€damages€are€available€in€aÏconversion€claim€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„3„419.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓANALYSISó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€UCC€statute€pertaining€to€the€conversion€of€instruments,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€47„3„419€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à(1)€An€instrument€is€converted€when:€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à...ÌÌà8 àà8 àœ(c)›€it€is€paid€on€a€forged€endorsement.ÌÌà8 à(2)€In€an€action€against€a€drawee€under€subsection€(1)€the€measureÏof€the€draweeððs€liability€is€the€face€amount€of€the€instrument.€€In€anyÏother€action€under€subsection€(1)€the€measure€of€liability€isÏpresumed€to€be€the€face€amount€of€the€instrument.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThus,€the€statute€does€not€on€its€face€address€the€issue€of€whether€consequentialÏdamages€are€available€in€an€action€for€conversion.€€œÌÌà àFANB›€argues,€however,€that€such€damages€may€not€be€awarded€exceptÏwhen€there€is€evidence€of€ð ðbad€faithðð€on€the€part€of€the€defendant.€€It€cites€inÏsupport€of€this€argument€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„4„103(5),€part€of€the€UCC€chapterÏentitled€ð ðbank€deposits€and€collections,ðð€which€provides€that:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€measure€of€damages€for€the€failure€to€exercise€ordinary€care€inÏhandling€an€item€is€the€amount€of€the€item€reduced€by€an€amountÏwhich€could€not€have€been€realized€by€the€use€of€ordinary€care,€òòandÏwhere€there€is€bad€faith€it€includes€other€damages,€if€any€sufferedÏby€the€party€as€a€proximate€consequenceóó.ÌÌ(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓà àÌà àFANB€then€contends€that€because€ð ðgood€faithðð€is€defined€by€the€UCC€asÏð ðhonesty€in€fact€in€the€conduct€or€transaction€concerned,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„1„201(19),€bad€faith€must€mean€œdishonesty€„„›€it€cites€òòMcConnico€v.€Third€NatððlÍBankóó,€499€S.W.2d€874€(Tenn.€1973)€in€support€of€this€argument.€€FANBÏconcludes€that€because€the€chancellor€found€that€FANBððs€employees€wereÏhonest€throughout€the€fraudulent€scheme,€the€bank€did€not€exhibit€the€bad€faithÏrequired€to€sustain€an€award€of€consequential€damages.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Glazer€advances€two€arguments€in€response€to€this€contention.€ÏInitially,€€he€cites€a€general€provision€of€the€UCC,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„1„106,Ïwhich€provides€as€follows:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€remedies€provided€by€chapters€1„9€of€this€title€shall€be€liberallyÏadministered€to€the€end€that€the€aggrieved€party€may€be€put€in€asÏgood€a€position€as€if€the€other€party€had€fully€performed€but€neitherÏconsequential€or€special€nor€penal€damages€may€be€had€except€asÏspecifically€provided€in€chapters€1„9€of€this€title€òòor€by€other€rule€ofÏlawóó.€€Ì(emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÓÓÌDr.€Glazer€then€argues€that€since€ðð€47„3„106€allows€consequential€damages€ifÏthey€are€sanctioned€by€ð ðother€rule€of€law,ðð€and€since€the€common€law€ofÍconversion€allowed€a€recovery€for€all€injuries€that€were€sustained€as€a€naturalÏand€proximate€result€of€defendantððs€wrong,€òòLance€Productions€v.€CommerceÏUnion€Bankóó,€764€S.W.2d€207,€213€(Tenn.€App.€1988),€the€award€of€consequentialÏdamages€by€the€courts€below€was€proper.ÌÌà àAlthough€this€argument€was€accepted€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€this€case,Ïwe€must€reject€it.€€The€argument€assumes€that€any€ð ðother€rule€of€lawðð€will€serve€toÏsanction€an€award€of€consequential€damages,€no€matter€if€the€ð ðother€ruleðð€isÏblatantly€inconsistent€with€provisions€of€the€UCC.€€This€assumption€is€erroneous,Ïfor€while€the€UCC€incorporates€other€rules€of€law,€it€does€so€only€to€the€extent€thatÏthey€are€consistent€with€its€statutory€provisions.€€This€is€illustrated€by€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€47„1„103,€which€provides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àòòUnless€displaced€by€the€particular€provisions€of€chapters€1„9€of€thisÏtitleóó,€òòthe€principles€of€law€and€equityóó,€including€the€law€merchantÏand€the€law€relative€to€capacity€to€contract,€principal€and€agent,Ïestoppel,€fraud,€misrepresentation,€duress,€coercion,€mistake,Ïbankruptcy,€or€other€validating€or€invalidating€cause€òòshallÏsupplement€its€provisionsóó.€€Ì(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓÌBecause€the€common€law€of€conversion€regarding€consequential€damages€isÏdirectly€opposed€to€ðð€œ47„4„103(5)€„„›€the€UCC€statute€on€the€œsubject€„„›€byÏdefinition€the€common€law€cannot€òòsupplementóó€the€œUCC;›€œif›€we€were€to€apply€theÏcommon€law,€it€would€have€to€be€òòsubstitutedóó€for€ðð€47„4„103(5).€€Thus,€weÏconclude€that€ðð€œ47„4„103(5)›€has€displaced€the€common€law€of€conversion€withÏrespect€to€consequential€damages,€and€Dr.€Glazerððs€first€argument€must€fail.ÌÌà àDr.€Glazer€alternatively€argues€that€the€bank€did€act€in€bad€faith,€despiteÏthe€chancellorððs€finding€that€its€employees€were€honest.€€He€contends€thatÏFANBððs€definition€of€bad€faith€is€too€narrow,€and€that€term€should€encompass€notÏonly€instances€of€outright€deception€and€untruthfulness€but€also€ð ðactions€inÏknowing€or€reckless€disregard€of€the€customerððs€contractual€œrights.ðð× ƒ) ××  ×€€Because›Ïthe€bank€œfailed›€to€cooperate€œeven€after€it›€œwas€apprised€of›€the€fraudulent€scheme,ÏDr.€Glazer€concludes,€it€acted€in€bad€faith€and€thus€the€award€was€proper.ÌÌà àIn€assessing€the€merits€of€this€contention,€we€first€note€that€FANB€is€correctÏthat€47„1„201(19)€does€make€a€partyððs€ð ðgood€faithðð€dependent€upon€its€ð ðhonesty,ððÏand€that€this€Court,€in€òòMcConnicoóó,€òòsupraóó,€did€equate€œð ðbad›€œfaithðð›€with€œð ðdishonesty.ðð›€ÏThis€does€not€œend€the€inquiry,€however,›€for€the€word€ð ðhonesty,ðð€which€is€notÏdefined€in€the€code,€is€susceptible€to€more€than€one€definition.€€For€example,ÏòòWebsterððsóó€defines€ð ðhonestyðð€as€ð ðfreedom€from€subterfuge€or€duplicity,ðð€a€definitionÏthat€supports€the€bankððs€argument.€€òòWebsterððs€Third€International€Dictionaryóó€1086Ï(G.C.€Merriam€Co.:1976).€€However,€òòWebsterððsóó€also€defines€the€term€as€ð ðfairnessÏand€straightforwardness€of€conduct,ðð€òòidóó.,€which€tends€to€support€Dr.€GlazerððsÏargument.€€Moreover,€several€courts€have€concluded€that€the€term€œð ðbad›€œfaithðð›Ïencompasses€a€wider€range€of€actions€than€outright€deception€or€untruthfulness.€ÏòòShearson€Lehman€Bros,€Inc.€v.€Wasatch€Bankóó,€788€F.Supp.€1184,€1196€(D.€UtahÏ1992);€òòKraftsman€Container€Corp.€V.€United€Counties€Trust€Coóó.,€404€A.2d€1288,Ï1293€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.€1979);€òòTaylor€v.€Citizens€Bank€of€Albanyóó,€160€S.W.2d€639,Ï641€(Ky.€App.€1942).€€Taking€into€consideration€the€various€meanings€of€the€wordÏœð ðhonesty,ðð›€and€the€conclusions€of€other€courts,€we€accept€the€definition€œproffered›Íby€Dr.€Glazer.€€ÌÌà àHaving€accepted€that€bad€faith€can€be€defined€as€a€knowing€or€recklessÏdisregard€of€a€customerððs€rights€is€not,€however,€determinative€of€this€case.€€InÏorder€for€the€consequential€damages€award€to€be€valid,€Dr.€Glazer€must€alsoÏshow€that€the€bankððs€œconduct€actually›€violated€his€òòrightsóó.€€In€other€words,€he€mustÏshow€that€the€bank€was€under€some€duty,€whether€it€be€based€on€contract,Ïstatute,€œregulation,€or›€judicial€decision,€to€assist€him€in€œinvestigating€theÏfraudulent€scheme.€€›ÌÌà àThis€Dr.€Glazer€has€failed€to€do.€€Although€he€states€in€the€complaint€thatÏ(1)€ð ðin€violation€of€the€provisions€of€the€depository€agreement€between€theÏparties,€the€bank€has€failed€and€refused€to€comply€with€this€request€[to€produceÏcopies€of€all€checks€cashed€at€the€bank];€and€(2)€ð ðdefendant€bank€has€breachedÏits€duty€to€plaintiff,€its€customer,€by€failing€to€cooperate€in€determining€the€numberÏand€amount€of€checks€cashed€on€which€there€were€forged€endorsements,ðð× ƒ+ ××  ×€Dr.ÍGlazer€points€to€nothing€in€the€depositary€contract€€to€support€these€statements.€ÏFurthermore,€he€cites€no€statute,€regulation,€or€judicial€decision€charging€theÏbank€with€any€such€duty;€and€our€research€has€failed€to€reveal€any€such€law.× ƒ, ××  ×€ÏThis€is€not€surprising,€for€under€Tennessee€law€the€relationship€of€FANB€and€Dr.ÏGlazer€was€simply€that€of€debtor/creditor;€therefore,€the€bank€had€no€fiduciaryÏduty€to€him.€€òòMacon€County€Livestock€Market€v.€Kentucky€State€Bankóó,€724€S.W.2dÏ343,€350€n.9€(Tenn.€App.€1986);€òòDickson€v.€Simpsonóó,€172€Tenn.€680,€687„88,Ï113€S.W.2d€1190,€1192„93€(1938).€ÌÌà àBecause€Dr.€Glazer€has€œnot€proved€that›€the€bankððs€refusal€to€cooperate€inÏthe€investigation€violated€any€contractual€or€other€legal€right€of€his,€the€bankÏcannot€be€held€to€have€acted€in€bad€faith.€€Because€the€UCC€requires€a€finding€ofÍbad€faith€before€consequential€damages€may€be€awarded,€the€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€and€the€trial€court€is€reversed€to€the€extent€that€it€allowed€suchÏdamages.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àœ_____________________________________›Ìœ›à àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌœ›à àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌœConcur:ÌBirch,€C.J.ÌAnderson,€Reid,€White,€JJ.Ì€€