WPCU 9Dט=x݂'#nhE[9{,yX+԰ Ѝ}6Ql3\dO}P~Bno{s+uux9J2OZI'|X)<%$ڴXL3ݟIZ= cSfvxC,\+<5.zT/"\2icDSBJDAxU5m3ʭ6<(tеS+3g[FsD ڑ%:3Q,ͩDΠcf~vƝDm/hhjhk~2kĪב 1r2*8 /]1P.Nî{J-ŀbe>|u RFtT|eEcamYzHm'*εh\;[]( ]I| `2IfIP"#;=PrX?X]1_P`Td?+CBI%dUNx % 04#! t!  ^ A 0DM    m b 0  N q bwddd4h|CU: 0P D5XX B AQ 0P 0D("  Z6Times New Roman Regular( U$  HP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\ORDER.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Order.wpt͚5'L (#$  0   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\Opinion.wptU- -(`G2ff$ U!   X   `   0  XX  g e$  X @ @ `   1  XjX  _TheTennesseeSupremeCourtlateroverruledPaynev.Western&Atl.R.R.,Co.inHutton  v.Watters,132Tenn.527,544,179S.W.134,138(1915). e$  X @ @ `   2  XjX  _SeeActofMar.14,1907,ch.154,1907Tenn.Pub.Acts459.{Z='+003|x 9 b"   _88   Ad FILEDXQP X  September21,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,OAZ"Arial Regular((3$ U!   ]]]])!dxdx dabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3$ U!   ($$   1  U!   _XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T 8ndd8  zb  _x`[B2.jz),`  `@EI<` 8ttxPt x@ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@)DATNASHVILLE  p nzbBUDDYLEEATTRACTIONS,INC., p )  V  `     h      p ) ` Plaintiff/Appellee,     p ) *z   `     h      p )  DavidsonChancery <  VS. `     h      p )  No.94C2578 N   `     h      p )WILLIAMMORRISAGENCY,INC. p )  AppealNo. r  andJOSEPHE.HARRIS,     p )  01A019804CH00185    `     h      p ) ` Defendants/Appellants.     p )  @,D zbn @@,D OPINION  . @D CONCURRINGINPART&DISSENTINGINPART  > nzb ` Iconcurwiththecourtsconclusionthatthiscasemustberetriedbecausethe ^ trialcourterroneouslygrantedasummaryjudgmentregardingthevalidityofMr.Harriss1991contractwithBuddyLeeAttractions,Inc.However,Idonotconcurwiththecourtsdispositionoftheelectionofremediesissuebecauseitisbasedonamistakenpremise!thatTennesseerecognizesbothacommonlawandstatutorycauseofactionforprocurementofbreachofcontract. ` Thecommonlawrecognizedanumberofcausesofactionforbusinessinjuries,including(1)unjustifiableinterferencewithbusinessrelations,(2)intentionalinterferencewithprospectivecontractualrelations,(3)intentionalinterferencewithacontractualrelationship,and(4)inducementofbreachofcontract.Inthelatterpartofthenineteenthcentury,theextenttowhichTennesseerecognizedthesecausesofactionwasplacedindoubtwhentheTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthataChattanoogaretailmerchantwhoseclienteleincludedemployeesoftheWestern&AtlanticRailroadcouldnotrecoverdamagesagainsttherailroadforthreateningtofireanyofitsemployeeswhotradedwiththemerchant.TheCourt,inathreetotwodecision,reasonedthatsuchanactioncouldbemaintainedonlyiftherailroadhadcommittedorthreatenedtocommitillegalactsandthattherailroadhadnotcommittedanillegalactbecauseitcouldterminateitsatwillemployeesatanytime D;6: foranyreason.SeePaynev.Western&Atl.R.R.Co.,81Tenn.507,523,52627  (1884). #  1       T  ` In1907,theGeneralAssemblycreatedastatutorycauseofactionfor   procurementofabreachofcontract.p #  2      ׀Thisstatute,nowcodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn. @  4750109(1995),doesnotapplytoallcommonlawcausesofactionfor  4  interferencewithbusinessrelations,butrathertoacts toinduceorprocurethe   breachorviolation,refusalorfailuretoperformanylawfulcontract.Overfifty ,|  yearsafterthestatutesenactment,theTennesseeSupremeCourtobservedindicta   thatthe statuteisdeclaratoryofthecommonlawexceptastotheamountofdamages t thatmayberecoveredagainstawrongdoer.EmmcoIns.Co.v.BeaconMut. h Indemn.Co.,204Tenn.540,551,322S.W.2d226,231(1959).TheCourts   observationwas,ofcourse,correctbecausethecommonlawdidrecognizeacause ` ofactionintortforprocurementofabreachofcontractandbecausethestatutory T trebledamageremedydifferedfromthecommonlawpunitivedamageremedy.   ` Later,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuitcitedtheEmmco @  decisionforthepropositionthatTennesseerecognizesbothacommonlawand  " statutorycauseofactionforprocurementofbreachofcontract.SeeEdwardsv. 8"$ TravelersIns.,563F.2d105,119(6thCir.1977).Thisconclusionstretchesthe #,& Emmcodictafarbeyonditsplainmeaning,andourcourtscould,withgoodcause, % ( declinetofollowtheEdwardscasewereitnotforlaterdictabytheTennessee $'t"* SupremeCourtapparentlyadoptingtheEdwardscourtsstatement.SeePolk& ($, Sullivan,Inc.v.UnitedCitiesGasCo.,783S.W.2d538,542(Tenn.1989). l*%.  ` ThiscourtcannotreversedecisionsoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt,see -)2 Richardsonv.Johnson,60Tenn.App.129,136,444S.W.2d708,711(1969),and X/*4 theprincipleofstaredecisismandatescautionwhenrevisitingissuesthathave 0L,6 alreadybeendecided.However,theTennesseeSupremeCourthasheldthatstare 2-8 decisisdoesnotcompelcourtstoperpetuatemanifesterror,seeSummersv. D4/: Thompson,764S.W.2d182,199(Tenn.1988)(Drowota,J.,concurring);Arnoldv.  Mayor&AldermenofKnoxville,115Tenn.195,202,90S.W.469,470(1905),and T doesnotapplytodicta.SeeShoushav.MatthewsDrivurselfServ.,Inc.,210Tenn. H 384,38990,358S.W.2d471,47374(1962).Inmyopinion,theideathatTennessee   recognizesbothacommonlawandstatutoryclaimforprocurementofabreachof @  contractisjustsuchamanifesterror.  4   ` TheillogicoftheEdwardscourtsreasoningcanbedemonstratedbyasking ,|  whytheGeneralAssemblyenactedTenn.CodeAnn.4750109inthefirstplace.   ItmakeslittlesensetoconcludethattheGeneralAssemblysetouttoduplicatea t commonlawactionthatalreadyexisted.Doingsowouldhavebeenawasteof h legislativetime.Rather,becauseoftheunsettledscopeofTennesseesrecognition   ofcommonlawtortsforbusinessinjuries,itismorelikelythattheGeneralAssembly ` decidedtoenactastatutorycauseofactionforprocurementofbreachofcontractto T supplantanycommonlawcauseofaction.Becauseintentionallyprocuringsomeone  tobreachanexistingcontractisinherentlymalicious,seeDynamicMotel L Management,Inc.v.Erwin,528S.W.2d819,822(Tenn.Ct.App.1975),theGeneral @  Assemblyalsodecidedtoreplacethecommonlawpunitivedamageremedywitha  " statutorytrebledamageremedy. 8"$  ` Resurrectingthecommonlawcauseofactionforprocurementofbreachof % ( contractaddslittletooursubstantivelawandcreatesunnecessaryprocedural $'t"* complexity.Thestatutoryremedyprovidesanappropriatevehicleforrecovering ($, damagesandfordeterringintentionallymaliciousconduct.Atthesametime, l*%. continuingtorecognizetheexistenceofacommonlawcauseofactionwillrequire ,`'0 theparties,thetrialcourt,andthejurytodealwithoverlapping,duplicative,and -)2 potentiallyconfusinginstructionsandspecialinterrogatories.Accordingly,Iwould X/*4 holdthatTenn.CodeAnn.4750109providesthesoleremedyforthetortof 0L,6 procuringabreachofcontractandthatthiscase,ifretried,shouldbetriedonthe 2-8 statutorycauseofactionalone. D4/:  `     h      p      x   (#  `     h      p _____________________________ 83?  `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE