ÿWPC1! …# VUFa %§ 0@­4í  w@ 0„X 0DÜ  n­& 0JÓ 0T 0^q 0hÏ 0r7 0|© 0†% 0« 1u;U,° 0dÜ B@U,] D3‰U6¼B)ò 0@DC[ AMžU*ëCDX1œ&ÍHóv~;vÓ¹ AOŒÆÛ 0D¡ D/å B!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <¾½Q 9Z ‹.Courier New RegularX(ù$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ  ÓŽUv ¡Ó 3|x  ŒDŽD‘D’“E”Ó€ (4(3DX$¤¤Ý ƒù!ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXXxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco&&&&'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 9Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òMarch€27,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó :Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòAbbott€Laboratories,€Inc.,€have€reached€a€settlement€with€the€plaintiffÏand€are,€therefore,€not€parties€to€this€appeal.óóÌ 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThe€parties€will€be€referred€to€as€they€appeared€in€the€trial€court,Ïi.e.,€plaintiff€and€defendants.óóÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThe€numbered€paragraphs€are€set€our€verbatim€as€they€appear€in€theÏplaintiff's€complaint.óóÌ >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòThis€statement€is€not€intended€to€be€a€criticism€of€counsel.€€We€agreeÏwith€the€observations€of€Judge€McRae›€in€òòTacker€v.€Wilsonóó,€hereinafter€cited,Ïthat€a€complaint€ought€not€be€dismissed€for€plaintiff's€failure€to€state€factsÏthat€...€only€a€discovery€process€might€reveal.€€...€[œT]he›€proof€[in€antitrustÏlitigation]€is€largely€in€the€hands€of€the€alleged€conspirators.óóÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T 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  ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ä ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€y¨XXdÖXXdÖ7Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€/1.;+'h|8o` Å `€€Lß›ÌÌÌÌÌÌEILEEN€M.€BLAKE,€on€her€own€€€€€)à àBLOUNTÏCIRCUITÌbehalf€and€on€behalf€of€all€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.Ï03A01„9509„CV„00307Ìothers€similarly€situated€€€€€€€)Ìwithin€the€State€of€Tennessee,€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€W.€DALE€YOUNGÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌABBOTT€LABORATORIES,€INC.,€€€€€€)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌBRISTOL„MYERS€SQUIBB€CO.,€and€€€)€ÌMEAD€JOHNSON€&€CO.,€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌÌGORDON€BALL,€Knoxville,€for€the€Appellant.ÌÌROBERT€J.€WALKER€and€R.€DALE€GRIMES,€Bass€Berry€and€Simms,€Nash…ville,€for€Bristol„Myers€Squibb€Co.,€and€Mead€Johnson€Company.ÌÌÌCHARLES€W.€œBURSON›,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€MICHAEL€E.ÏMOORE,€Solicitor€General,€PERRY€ALLAN€CRAFT,€Deputy€AttorneyÏGeneral,€and€VERNON€A.€œMELTON›,€JR.,€òòAmicus€Curiaeóó.ÌÌÌÌÇÓÓà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌà€ àMcMurray,€J.ÌÌà àThis€case€originated€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Blount€County.€ÏThe€complaint€ostensibly€attempted€to€state€a€class€action€againstÏthe€defendants,€alleging€a€violation€of€The€Tennessee€Unfair€TradeÏPractices€Act,€(T.C.A.€ðððð€47„25„101€et€seq.),€hereinafter€referredÏto€as€The€Trade€Practices€Act,€and€The€Tennessee€Consumer€Protec…tion€Act,€(T.C.A.€ðððð€47„18„101€et€seq.)× ƒ2 ××  ×€€No€order€has€been€enteredÏpursuant€to€Rule€23.03,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€allow…ing€the€case€to€proceed€as€a€class€action.× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€defendants€filed€a€joint€motion€to€dismiss€under€theÏprovisions€of€Rule€12,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€assert…ing€that€the€plaintiff's€complaint€failed€to€state€a€claim€uponÍwhich€relief€can€be€granted.€€The€motion€was€sustained€and€theÏcase€dismissed.€€This€appeal€resulted.€€We€reverse€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌà àIn€their€motion€to€dismiss,€the€defendants€proceeded€on€theÏtheories€that€The€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€Act€applies€only€toÏtransactions€that€predominately€affect€intrastate€commerce€asÏopposed€to€interstate€commerce.€€Secondly,€they€assert€that€TheÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€of€1977€does€not€apply€to€theÏtype€of€conspiracy€alleged€by€the€plaintiff.ÌÌà àOur€review€of€the€trial€court's€action€in€granting€a€motionÏto€dismiss€pursuant€to€Rule€12,€T.R.C.P.,€is€rather€limited.€WhenÏconsidering€a€Rule€12€motion€to€dismiss,€we€are€required€to€acceptÏthe€allegations€of€the€complaint€as€true.€òòœGreenhill›€v.€Carpenteróó,Ï718€S.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1986).€Our€scope€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€withÏno€presumption€of€correctness.€òòMontgomery€v.€Mayor€of€the€City€ofÏCovingtonóó,€778€S.W.2d€444€(Tenn.€App.€1988).ÌÌà@ àò òTHE€FACTSó ó× ƒ4 ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€alleged€that€the€defendants€by€independentÏaction€and€conspiracy€among€themselves€and€others,€not€named€asÏdefendants,€grossly€overcharged€Tennessee€consumers€who€purchasedÏbaby€food€formula€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€To€substantiate€thisÏconclusion,€the€plaintiff€alleges€that:ÌÓÓÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÌà0 àà à15.à àDefendants€have€been€able€to€grossly€overcharge€forÏinfant€formula€by€various€acts€or€practices,€inƒcluding,€without€limitation,€banning,€and€conspir…ing€to€ban,€direct€advertising€of€infant€formula€toÏconsumers€and€pursuing€an€aggressive€effort€to€sellÏtheir€products€through€physicians,€nurses,€andÏhospitals.€€Defendants€refer€to€the€medical€marketÏas€the€"ethical"€market€and€to€their€sales€strategyÏas€"medical€detailing."ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌà0 àà à28.à àBeginning€in€1980€and€continuing€through€1992,€theÏdefendants€engaged€in€a€continuing€trust,€comƒbination,€contract,€arrangement€and€agreement,Ïexpress€or€implied€in€violation€of€Section€47„25„101,€et€seq.,€of€the€Tennessee€Unfair€Trade€ActÍwhich€provides€that€"such€combinations€are€herebyÏdeclared€to€be€against€public€policy,€unlawful€andÏvoid."ÌÌà0 àà à29.à àIn€violation€of€section€47„25„101,€et€seq.,€of€theÏTennessee€Unfair€Trade€Practices€Act,€the€...Ïtrust,€combination,€contract,€arrangement,€andÏagreement€consisted€of€an€agreement,€arrangementÏand€concert€of€action€among€the€defendants,€theÏsubstantial€terms€of€which€were€to€raise,€fix,Ïmaintain€and€stabilize€at€artificially€high€levelsÏthe€wholesale€prices€of€infant€formula€sold€in€theÏUnited€States,€including€the€State€of€Tennessee.€ÏSuch€trust,€combination,€contract,€arrangement€andÏagreement€had€the€effect,€among€others,€of€causingÏretail€prices€of€infant€formula€purchased€by€plainƒtiff€and€other€members€of€the€class€to€be€raised,Ïfixed,€maintained€and€stabilized€at€artificiallyÏhigh€and€non„competitive€levels.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌà0 àà à32.à àFor€over€twelve€years,€defendants€have€unilaterallyÏcommitted,€and€have€conspired€amongst€themselves€toÏcommit,€an€unfair€or€deceptive€act€or€practice€inÏviolation€of€Section€47„18„109,€et€seq.,€of€theÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€in€the€sale€andÏmarketing€of€infant€formula€to€thousands€ofÏTennessee€consumers€at€excessively€high€prices.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€€*€€€€€*€€€€€*ÌÌà0 àà à34.à àIn€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Consumer€ProtectionÏAct,€defendants€have€supplied€infant€formula€andÏengaged€in€unconscionable€acts€or€practices€inÏconnection€with€its€sales€of€infant€formula€toÏcustomers€in€Tennessee.€Defendants€unfair€or€decep…tive€acts€or€practices€include€the€conspiracy€toÏsell€infant€formula€at€an€excessively€high€price.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌà@ àò òDISCUSSIONÌó óÌà àMost€of€the€plaintiff's€allegations€are€œconclusory›€ratherÏthan€allegations€of€fact.€A€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€stateÏa€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€œgranted›€admits€well„pled€facts,Ïnot€conclusions€of€the€pleader.€òòSeeóó€òòSwallows€v.€Western€ElectricÏCo.,€Incóó.,€543€S.W.2d€581,€583€(Tenn.€1976).ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€sole€purpose€of€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)Ïmotion€to€dismiss€is€to€test€the€legal€sufficiency€ofÏthe€complaint.€òòSanders€v.€Vinsonóó,€558€S.W.2d€838,€840Ï(Tenn.€1977);€òòœHolloway›€v.€œPutnam›€Countyóó,€534€S.W.2d€292,Ï296€(Tenn.€1976).€These€motions€are€not€favored,€òòseeóóÏòòMoore€v.€Bellóó,€187€Tenn.€366,€369,€215€S.W.2d€787,€789Ï(1948),€and€are€now€rarely€granted€in€light€of€theÏliberal€pleading€standards€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure.€€òòSeeóó€òòœBarish›€v.€Metropolitan€œGov't›óó,€627ÏS.W.2d€953,€954€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981);€œ5A›€Charles€A.ÏWright€&€Arthur€R.€Miller,€Federal€Practice€&€ProcedureÏðððð€1356€&€1357€(2d€ed.€1990)€("Wright€&€Miller").ÌÌ€Ìà8 àà àTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€motions€are€not€designedÏto€correct€œinartfully›€worded€pleadings.€Wright€&€MillerÏðð€1356,€at€296.€And€so€a€complaint€should€not€be€dis…missed,€no€matter€how€poorly€drafted,€if€it€states€aÏcause€of€action.€òòœPaschall›'s,€Inc.€v.€Dozieróó,€219€Tenn.Ï45,€50„51,€407€S.W.2d€150,€152€(1966);€òòCollier€v.ÍœSlayden›€Bros.€Ltd.€Partnershipóó,€712€S.W.2d€106,€108Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€Dismissal€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï12.02(6)€is€warranted€only€when€no€set€of€facts€willÏentitle€the€plaintiff€to€relief,€òòœPemberton›€v.€AmericanÏDistilled€Spirits€Coóó.,€664€S.W.2d€690,€691€(Tenn.€1984),Ïor€when€the€complaint€is€totally€lacking€in€clarity€andÏspecificity.€òòSmith€v.€Lincoln€Brass€Works,€Incóó.,€712ÏS.W.2d€470,€471€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà8 àà àWhile€it€is€not€our€role€to€create€claims€whereÏnone€exist,€òòDonaldson€v.€Donaldsonóó,€557€S.W.2d€60,€62Ï(Tenn.€1977),€we€must€always€look€to€the€substance€of€aÏpleading€rather€than€to€its€form.€òòœUsrey›€v.€Lewisóó,€553ÏS.W.2d€612,€614€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977).€Thus,€when€aÏcomplaint€is€tested€by€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)Ïmotion€to€dismiss,€we€must€take€all€the€well„pleaded,Ïmaterial€factual€allegations€as€true,€and€we€must€con…strue€the€complaint€liberally€in€the€plaintiff's€favor.ÏòòLewis€v.€Allenóó,€698€S.W.2d€58,€59€(Tenn.€1985);€òòœHolloway›Ïv.€œPutnam›€Countyóó,€534€S.W.2d€at€296;€òòLilly€v.€Smithóó,€790ÏS.W.2d€539,€540€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).ÌÌòòDobbs€v.€œGuenther›óó,€846€S.W.2d€270€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌÓ ` ܇XœÈ“X ÓÓÓÌà àTesting€the€plaintiff's€pleadings€under€the€above€rules,€itÏappears€that€the€only€facts€properly€and€œwell€pled›€are€that€theÏdefendants,€along€with€others,€conspired€to€fix€prices€and€did€fixÏprices€of€baby€formula.œ× ƒ5 ××  ×›€In€reaching€this€conclusion,€we€areÍconstruing€the€pleadings€most€liberally€and€in€favor€of€the€plain…tiff.€€We,€therefore,€find€that€the€complaint€states€sufficientÏfacts€to€allege€price€fixing.ÌÌà@ àò òTHE€TENNESSEE€TRADE€PRACTICES€ACTó óÌÌà àOur€next€inquiry€is€whether€there€is€an€individual€remedyÏavailable€to€indirect€purchasers€under€The€Tennessee€Trade€Prac…tices€Act,€(T.C.A.€ðððð€47„25„101€et€seq.).€€To€this€inquiry,€weÏrespond€in€the€affirmative.€€T.C.A.€ðð€47„25„106€provides€as€fol…lows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò ò47„25„106.€Recovery€of€consideration€as€remedyÏfor€damages.€ð"ð€ó óAny€person€who€is€injured€or€damaged€byÏany€such€arrangement,€contract,€agreement,€trust,€orÏcombination€described€in€this€part€may€sue€for€andÏrecover,€in€any€court€of€competent€jurisdiction,€fromÏany€person€operating€such€trust€or€combination,€the€fullÏconsideration€or€sum€paid€by€the€person€for€any€goods,Ïwares,€merchandise,€or€articles,€the€sale€of€which€isÏcontrolled€by€such€combination€or€trust.ÌÌÓÓÌà àIt€seems€abundantly€clear€from€the€unambiguous€provisions€ofÏT.C.A€ðð€47„25„106,€that€there€is€an€individual€right,€under€theÏlaws€of€this€state,€to€maintain€an€action€against€any€person€orÏentity€guilty€of€violating€the€provisions€of€Title€47,€Chapter€25,Ïwhether€the€individual€is€a€direct€purchaser€or€indirect€purchas…er.ÌÌà àApparently,€this€precise€issue€has€not€been€addressed€by€theÏappellate€courts€of€this€state.€€The€primary€thrust€of€the€defen…dants'€argument€that€an€indirect€purchaser€has€no€standing€toÏmaintain€an€action€such€as€this€is€based€on€the€decision€in€òòIlli…nois€Brick€Co.€v.€Illinoisóó,€431€U.S.€720€(1977).€€In€òòIllinoisÏBrickóó€the€U.€S.€Supreme€Court€determined€that€indirect€purchasersÏlack€standing€to€recover€under€federal€antitrust€law.€€To€supportÏtheir€position€that€a€similar€restriction€is€applicable€to€actionsÏunder€the€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€Act,€they€assert€that€TheÏGeneral€Assembly€of€Tennessee€on€three€occasions€has€sought€toÏpass€legislation€to€expressly€confer€standing€on€indirect€purchas…ers.€€We€simply€note€that€proposed€legislation,€not€enacted,€hasÏno€consequence€whatever€upon€the€interpretation€of€an€existingÍstatute.€€While€such€proposed€legislation€may€indicate€to€someÏextent€some€of€the€individual€œlegislators'›€interpretation€of€anÏexisting€statute,€it€is€in€no€way€controlling€or,€for€that€matter,Ïrelevant,€to€the€court's€duty€to€properly€construe€statutes.ÌÌà àThe€cardinal€rule€of€Tennessee€statutory€interpretation€is€toÏascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€intent€and€purpose€of€the€Legis…lature€in€relation€to€the€subject€matter€of€the€legislation,€allÏrules€of€construction€being€but€aids€to€that€end.€€òòœRippeth›€v.ÏœConnelly›óó,€60€Tenn.€App.€430,€447€S.W.2d€380,€381€(1969).€€A€stat…ute€must€be€construed€so€as€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€theÏintent€and€purpose€of€the€legislation,€considering€the€statute€asÏa€whole€and€giving€words€their€common€and€ordinary€meaning.€ÏòòMarion€County€Board€of€Commissioners€€v.€Marion€County€ElectionÏCommissionóó,€594€S.W.2d€681€(Tenn.€1980).€The€œcourt›€should€assumeÏthat€the€Legislature€used€each€word€in€the€statute€purposely€andÏthat€the€use€of€these€words€conveyed€some€intent€and€had€a€meaningÏand€purpose.€€òòAnderson€Fish€&€Oyster€Company€v.€Oldsóó,€197€Tenn.Ï604,€277€S.W.2d€344€(1955).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòœCrowe›€v.€œFerguson›óó,€814ÏS.W.2d€721€(Tenn.€1991).€€Where€the€language€contained€within€theÍfour€corners€of€a€statute€is€plain,€clear,€and€unambiguous€and€theÏenactment€is€within€legislative€competency,€"the€duty€of€theÏcourts€is€simple€and€obvious,€namely,€to€say€òòsic€lex€scriptaóó€[theÏlaw€is€so€written],€and€obey€it."€€òòMiller€v.€œChildress›óó,€21€Tenn.Ï(2€Hum.)€319,€321„22€(1841).ÌÌà àWe€find€that€the€plaintiff€in€this€case€has€standing€toÏpursue€an€action€for€a€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðððð€47„25„101€et€seq.,Ïwithout€reference€to€classification€as€a€direct€or€indirect€pur…chaser.€€There€is€no€such€limitation€written€into€the€statute.€€WeÏdo€not€find€òòTacker€v.€Wilsonóó,€830€œF.Supp›.€422€(W.D.€Tenn.€1993),Ïcited€by€the€œdefendants,›€to€be€persuasive€authority€to€the€con…trary.€€In€òòTackeróó,€the€court€disposed€of€the€issue€with€the€fol…lowing€statement:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àPlaintiff€has€alleged€no€facts€that€would€indicateÏthat€plaintiff€transacted€business€with€any€of€theÏdefendants.€€As€a€private€party,€plaintiff's€remedy€forÏa€violation€of€[T.C.A.]€ðð€47„25„101€would€be€found€inÏ[T.C.A.]€ðð€47„25„106,€but€plaintiff€has€stated€no€claimÏfor€which€relief€can€be€granted.ÌÌÓÓId.€page€430ÌÌà àThe€bare€assertion€that€plaintiff€has€stated€no€claim€forÏwhich€relief€can€be€granted€can€hardly€be€taken€as€a€determinationÏthat€a€private€person€has€no€standing€to€pursue€a€remedy€underÏT.C.A.€ðð€47„25„106.ÌÌà àThe€next€inquiry€is€whether€The€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€ActÏapplies€to€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€The€defendants€insistÏthat€the€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€Act€applies€only€to€transac…tions€that€predominately€affect€intrastate€commerce,€and€thatÏsince€the€complaint€alleges€a€price„fixing€conspiracy€occurringÏoutside€of€Tennessee,€the€plaintiff€has€failed€to€state€a€claimÏunder€Tennessee€Law.€€We€agree€with€the€pro‚position€of€law€asÏadvanced€by€the€defendants€but€not€their€conclusion.€€The€CongressÏof€the€United€States€is€vested€with€authority€to€regulate€inter…state€commerce€by€virtue€of€Ô% € ÔThe€Constitution€of€the€United€States,ÏArticle€1,€Section€8.€€Our€court€in€examining€the€issue€in€òòLynchÏDisplay€v.€National€Souvenir€œCenteróó,€640€S.W.2d€837€(Tenn.€App.Ï1982)›€states€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€Tennessee€antitrust€law€applies€to€transactionsÏwhich€are€predominately€intrastate€in€character.€€TheÏtransaction€does€not€have€to€be€exclusively€intrastateÏto€be€affected.€€The€old€constitutional€doctrine€ofÏmutual€exclusivity€between€state€and€federal€laws€af…fecting€commerce€has€long€been€rejected.€(CitationsÏomitted).ÌÌId.€840.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€question€before€us,€however,€is€not€whether€the€plain…tiff's€claim€is,€in€fact,€predominately€intrastate€commerce€orÏpredominately€interstate€commerce,€but€whether€the€plaintiff'sÏcomplaint€states€a€claim€cognizable€under€the€laws€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee.€€We€hold€that€it€does.ÌÌà àWe€have€carefully€examined€the€complaint.€Contrary€to€theÏdefendants'€assertions,€we€fail€to€find€an€allegation€that€theÏalleged€conspiracy€took€place€outside€the€State€or€that€the€trans…actions€complained€of€occurred€outside€the€state.€€It€is€allegedÏthat€the€principal€offices€of€the€defendants€are€located€outsideÏthe€State€of€Tennessee€and€that€the€defendants€intended€theirÏactions€to€artificially€maintain€high€wholesale€levels€of€infantÏformula€in€the€entire€United€States.€€From€that€information,Íalone,€however,€we€cannot€infer€that€the€conspiracy,€if€any,Ïoccurred€outside€the€State€or€that€the€transactions€occurredÏoutside€the€state.€Since€we€are€required€take€all€the€well„pled,Ïmaterial€factual€allegations€as€true,€and€construe€the€complaintÏliberally€in€the€plaintiff's€favor,€we€cannot€dismiss€a€complaintÏon€inferences€which€may€reasonably€be€drawn€from€the€pleadingsÏunless€the€inferences€are€so€incontestably€conclusive€as€to€ex…clude€all€other€reasonable€inferences.€€Such€is€not€the€case€here.ÌÌà àIt€is€settled€in€the€undisturbed€opinion€of€òòStandard€Oil€Co.Ïv.€Stateóó,€117€Tenn€618,€100€S.W.€705€(1906),€quoted€with€approvalÏin€òòState€ex€rel€œCates›€v.€Standard€Oil€Co.€Of€Kentuckyóó,€120€TennÏ86,€110€S.W.€565€(1908),€that€the€"Legislature€clearly€intended€toÏprohibit€trusts,€combinations,€and€agreements€affecting€all€com…merce€not€covered€by€the€federal€statute,€and€upon€which€it€had€aÏright€to€legislate.€€It€did€not€intend€to€stop€short€of€its€powerÏor€to€exceed€it."€Id.€580.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€ex€rel€œCates›óó,€the€court€discussed€the€issue€ofÏ"importation"€as€used€in€the€statute.€€The€court€opined€that€onceÍa€product€was€imported€into€the€state€from€other€states€or€coun…tries€and€became€commingled€with€the€common€mass€of€property€inÏthis€state,€it€is€no€longer€an€article€of€interstate€commerce.€Ï"It€is€well€settled€that€commerce€in€such€imported€articles€may€beÏregulated€by€state€legislation."€€(Citations€omitted).ÌÌà àWe€find€nothing€in€the€complaint€or€the€entire€record€beforeÏus€which€justifies€a€finding€by€the€trial€court,€on€a€Rule€12Ïmotion,€that€the€transactions€complained€of€predominantly€affectÏinterstate€commerce€as€opposed€to€in‚trastate€commerce.€€If€it€isÏlater€determined€by€some€manner€cognizable€under€Tennessee€lawÏthat€the€actions€complained€of€by€the€plaintiff€predominatelyÏaffect€interstate€commerce,€then€the€defendants€must€prevail€onÏthis€issue.€€On€the€other€hand,€if€it€is€determined€by€any€methodÏcognizable€under€Tennessee€law,€that€the€transactions€complainedÏof€predominately€affect€intrastate€commerce,€the€plaintiff€mayÏproceed€in€this€action.ÌÌà àIn€sum€and€substance,€it€is€not€determinable€from€the€recordÏbefore€us€that€the€œacts›€complained€of€by€the€plaintiff€predomi…nately€œaffect›€interstate€commerce.€€We€note€that€all€partiesÏargued€facts,€in€the€trial€court,€in€their€briefs€and€before€thisÏcourt€that€are€not€contained€in€the€record€before€us.€€In€review…ing€a€Rule€12€motion,€we€are€not€at€liberty€to€assume€facts€not€inÏthe€record.€€We,€therefore,€€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€on€this€issue€and€hold€that€the€complaint€does€state€a€causeÏof€action€under€the€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€Act.ÌÌà@ àò òTHE€TENNESSEE€CONSUMER€PROTECTION€ACT€OF€1977ó óÌÌà àWe€must€next€look€to€the€propriety€of€the€trial€court'sÏjudgment€that€the€plaintiff€cannot€maintain€this€action€under€TheÏTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€of€1977,€T.C.A.€ðððð€47„18„101€etÏseq.ÌÌà àT.C.A.€ðð€47„18„109€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò ò47„18„109.€Private€right€of€action€„€Damages€„ÏNotice€to€division.€ð"ð€ó ó(a)(1)€€Any€person€who€suffersÏan€ascertainable€loss€of€money€or€property,€real,€per…sonal,€or€mixed,€or€any€other€article,€commodity,€orÏthing€of€value€wherever€situated,€as€a€result€of€the€useÍor€employment€by€another€person€of€an€òòunfair€or€decep…tiveóó€act€or€practice€declared€to€be€unlawful€by€thisÏpart,€may€bring€an€action€individually€to€recover€actualÏdamages.€(Emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓÌà àOur€inquiry€is€whether€price€fixing€is€an€unfair€or€deceptiveÏact€or€practice.€€While€price€fixing€is€not€among€the€unfair€orÏdeceptive€acts€or€practices€specifically€enumerated€in€T.C.A.€ððÏ47„18„104,€it€is€clear€that€the€enumeration€of€unfair€or€deceptiveÏacts€or€practices€is€not€exclusive€nor€limited€only€to€those€actsÏenumerated.€€Paragraph€(b)(27)€specifically€states€that€"engagingÏin€any€other€act€or€practice€which€is€deceptive€to€the€consumer€orÏto€any€other€person"€falls€within€the€scope€of€the€statute.ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€reasonable€minds€cannot€differ,€in€good€con…science,€that€price€fixing€is€not€an€unfair€practice.€€We€haveÏhereinbefore€set€out€the€guidelines€for€statutory€interpretation.€ÏWe€note€that€the€terms€unfair€or€deceptive€as€used€in€the€ConsumerÏProtection€Act€are€in€the€disjunctive.€€We€are€required€to€giveÏeach€word€its€common€and€ordinary€meaning.ÌÌà àThe€term€"unfair"€is€defined€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àœContrary›€to€laws€or€conventions,€especially€inÏcommerce;€œunethical›œ;›€unfair€œtrading.›ÌÌœAmerican›€Heritage€Dictionary€of€the€English€Language,€œThird›€Edi…tion,€œHoughton›„œMifflin›€Company,€(1992).ÌÌ€ÌÌœà8 àà0 à›à0 àà à1.à àœNot€just›€or€œimpartial;€biased,›€œinequitable,›ÌÌà8 àà0 àà0 àà à2.à àDishonest,€dishonorable,€or€unethical€inÏbusiness€dealings€involving€relations€withÏÔ&  Ôemployees,€customers,€or€competitors.ÌÌWebster's€New€Twentieth€Century€Dictionary,€unabridged,€SecondÏEdition,€œPrentiss›€Hall€Press,€(1983).Ô'  ÔÌÌÓÓÌà àDefendants€argue€that€since€The€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€ActÏpredates€the€Consumer€Protection€Act,€and€since€it€specificallyÏaddresses€the€conduct€for€which€plaintiff€œseeks›€relief€the€con…struction€œsought›€by€the€plaintiff€would€result€in€a€repeal€byÏœimplication›€of€part€of€The€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€Act.€€InÏsupport€of€this€position,€the€defendants€again€assert€that€theÏGeneral€Assembly€intended€The€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€Act€toÏapply€only€to€conduct€that€predominantly€affects€intrastate€com…merce.€€Further,€the€defendants€assert€specifically,€that€to€allowÍthe€plaintiff€to€prosecute€a€claim€as€an€indirect€purchaser€underÏThe€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€of€1977€would€conflict€withÏThe€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€Act.€€We€expressly€reject€thisÏargument€based€on€our€finding€hereinabove€stated€that€under€ourÏTennessee€Trade€Practices€Act,€a€plaintiff€has€standing€as€anÏindirect€purchaser€to€maintain€an€action.ÌÌà àFurther€and€finally,€we€note€that€T.C.A.€ðððð€47„18„102€and€47„18„œl12›,€provide€respectively:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àò ò47„18„102.€Purposes.€ð"ðó ó€The€provisions€of€thisÏpart€shall€be€liberally€construed€to€promote€the€follow…ing€policies:ÌÌà8 à(1)€To€simplify,€clarify,€and€modernize€state€law€gov…erning€the€protection€of€the€consuming€public€and€toÏconform€these€laws€with€existing€consumer€protectionÏpolicies;Ì€ÌÑ 4 ÑÑ ¸ Ñà8 à(2)€To€protect€consumers€and€legitimate€business€enter…prises€from€those€who€engage€in€unfair€or€deceptive€actsÏor€practices€in€the€conduct€of€any€trade€or€commerce€inÏpart€or€wholly€within€this€state;€ÌÌà8 à(3)€To€encourage€and€promote€the€development€of€fairÏconsumer€practices;€ÌÌà8 à(4)€To€declare€and€to€provide€for€civil€legal€means€forÏmaintaining€ethical€standards€of€dealing€between€personsÏengaged€in€business€and€the€consuming€public€to€the€endÏthat€good€faith€dealings€between€buyers€and€sellers€atÏall€levels€of€commerce€be€had€in€this€state;€and€ÌÌà8 à(5)€To€promote€statewide€consumer€education.ÌÌÌÌà8 àò ò47„18„112.€Supplementary€lawó ó.€ð"ð€The€powers€andÏremedies€provided€in€this€part€shall€be€cumulative€andÏsupplementary€to€all€other€powers€and€remedies€otherwiseÏprovided€by€law.€The€invocation€of€one€power€or€remedyÏherein€shall€not€be€construed€as€excluding€or€prohibit…ing€the€use€of€any€other€available€remedy.ÌÌÓÓÌà àWe€interpret€the€foregoing€sections€of€The€Tennessee€ConsumerÏProtection€Act€of€1977,€to€mean€what€they€say,€i.e.,€the€provi…sions€of€The€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€of€1977,€are€cumu…lative€remedies€in€all€respects€and€their€application€under€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case,€at€least€for€the€purposes€of€a€Rule€12Ïmotion,€are€not€inconsistent€with€the€application€of€The€TennesseeÏTrade€Practices€Act.ÌÌà àParenthetically,€we€note€that€the€same€limitations€must€applyÏto€the€Tennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act€of€1977,€as€those€appliedÏto€the€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€Act.€€If€it€is€determined€thatÏthe€acts€complained€of€predominately€affect€interstate€commerce,Ïthe€defendants€must€prevail.€€It€is€a€well„settled€principle€ofÏlaw€that€one€cannot€do€indirectly€what€cannot€be€done€directly.€ÏòòSeeóó€i.e.,€òòScott€v.€œMcReynolds›óó,€225€S.W.2d€401€(Tenn.€App.€1952);ÏòòRoberts€v.€Robertsóó,€767€S.W.2d€646€(Tenn.€App.€1988)€and€òòHaynes€v.ÏCity€of€Pigeon€Forgeóó,€883€S.W.2d€619€(Tenn.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏsustaining€the€Rule€12€motion€and€dismissing€the€plaintiff'sÏcomplaint€was€error.€We€accordingly€reverse€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àCosts€of€this€cause€are€taxed€to€the€defendants€and€this€caseÏis€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€collection€thereof€and€forÏsuch€other€and€further€action€as€may€be€necessary€and€not€œinƒconsistant›€with€this€opinion.ÌÌ€€ÌÓÓà€ à______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Don€T.€McMurray,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌòò(Not€participating)€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌClifford€E.€Sanders,€Sp.€J.ÌÇÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€ë:XXd×XXd×7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌÌÌÌ̛̜ÌEILEEN€M.€BLAKE,€on€her€own€€€€€)à àBLOUNT€CIRCUITÌbehalf€and€on€behalf€of€all€€€€€)à àC.A.€NO.€03A01„9509„CV„00307Ìothers€similarly€situated€€€€€€€)Ìwithin€the€State€of€Tennessee,€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìvs.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àHON.€W.€DALE€YOUNGÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àJUDGEÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌABBOTT€LABORATORIES,€INC.,€€€€€€)à àREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌBRISTOL„MYERS€SQUIBB€CO.,€and€€€)€ÌMEAD€JOHNSON€&€CO.,€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€Defendants„Appellees€€)ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòORDERóóó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€from€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Blount€County,€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel.€ÏUpon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€was€reversible€error€in€the€trial€court.€€We,€therefore,Ïreverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àCosts€of€this€cause€are€taxed€to€the€defendants€and€this€caseÏis€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€collection€thereof€and€forÏsuch€other€and€further€action€as€may€be€necessary€and€not€incon…sistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€PER€CURIAMÌ