"There is nothing in the record before us showing that the trial court failed to recognize and charge the Buyers’ theory of common law fraud or intentional misrepresentation. In fact, the court gave the jury a generic but complete charge on the subject of intentional misrepresentation. Under the facts of this case, we hold that the Buyers’ theory of common law fraud or intentional misrepresentation was fully litigated, correctly charged, and resolved by the jury’s verdict. The jury found in favor of Seller. As a result, there is no remaining cause of action based on intentional misrepresentation under the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act or the common law." Id.
"A trial court should instruct the jury upon every issue of fact and theory of the case that is raised by the pleadings and is supported by the proof. Reviewing the record de novo, we find that Buyers alleged, and the proof supported, the common law theories of breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court erred in not letting those two theories go to the jury. We thus affirm in part and vacate in part. The case is remanded for a new trial on the issues of breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation." Id.