ÿWPC íÆ:Ÿ‡ø²¿Ž¨ “mL»èêÉ„9ãt^O‰)ÜîÃsØß)›+aäHmÝì°"\Ö¤[³Åb•ãZiOA® V÷XÏd$[ÒK?0ùÓEkeª›ü<àµí]gŽˆ÷,Ïü¨Ë²”—­ñ‘[ÏÐ÷ƒÏ£àŸöóF¦ÇRÛ&{5:ñ U±Ö÷x†XJÿ‚ÿ&mOƒËƒŽ[š7Š·Çf,%§U(o’v<‰Ô‹*à¿Ã/.†‚ ÷œ‰è½ƒòöÑX|º|š×oîˆ,¾7JÈHýt¬ÞSk è[ÁPVéXåãOˆD~3È€‹º³ô>-õCj™.7~Æ,ÑÍn¬1L¶8¼÷vö2ÿ€Ý`¤u­äcw‰Uzzígºûýéï[g׌*ÍïJ¬à1‘ŠÚ¨Êd#!xUN™ %ç 0(íw 4 - < D 0ÐL 0D -` N ^ › m 1‡´ 72; 1um 72â 0c   7w è®U:–––––– BÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ 0Dí D511111 AQfÆ· 0D} 0DÁ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡{Z=',,,,,,3|x (2¦$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñý„E'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.##37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à -Ý ƒb¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XpÜXXXÔÔ€@XXpÜÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XpÜX@ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€29,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó ÞÝ ƒ ß"$ÝÑT@R[ì AØ'ÿ LegalXà3Ø' Letter  AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€preceding€statement€of€facts€not€in€dispute€are€copied€from€Defendants/AppellantsððÐ ° Ðbrief.€€It€is€noted€that€the€ð ðÔ_ÔreasonablnessÔ_Ôðð€of€service€carrier€profit€is€the€factual€questionÐ œì Ðabout€which€Plaintiffs€complain.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý )ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼¯»XXÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ-¼äd†XœÔ‘X°œX-ÓÑ  ÑÑ€ úÑßx€`[B2.jzÛ™`  `€€@ÿEžI` 8ttxPÖ°( ™ xßÔ_ÔJO€ANN€FORMAN,€INC.,€et€al,à  à)Ð ° Ðà  àà l àà Ä àà  àà t àà  à)ÌÓ?¼8d‚X,X¼äd†XœÔ‘X?Óà  àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ô$ Ðà  àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9805„CH„00260Ð æ6 Ðv.à  àà  à)à  àà  àÐ øH Ðà  àà  à)à  àMarion€ChanceryÐ  Z ÐNATIONAL€COUNCIL€ONà  à)à  àNo.€6068Ð  l ÐCOMPENSATION€INSURANCE,à  à)Ð . ~ ÐINC.,€et€al,à  à)à  àÐ @  Ðà  àà  à)Ìà  àDefendants/Appellants.à  à)Ð d´  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€MARION€COUNTY,€ÌAT€JASPER,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€A.€GREER,€JR.,€SPECIAL€CHANCELLORÌÓ  ÓÌÓB¼8d‚XÚ,X¼8d‚X,XBÓÔ€XÖ#X»¼¯ÔÌÌJOHN€W.€MURREY,€IIIà  àà Ú àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ &v ÐHUGH€J.€MOORE,€JR.à  àà Ú àDENNIS€J.€GARVEYÐ  b ÐDOUGLAS€E.€PECKà  àà Ú àMICHAEL€BASSHAMÐ þ N ÐJERRY€H.€SUMMERSà  àà Ú àGEORGE€S.€BELL,€IIIÐ ê!: ÐJIMMY€F.€RODGERS,€JR.à  àà Ú àNashville,€Tennessee€Ô€ô¹õXXÖ#ÔÐ Ö"& ÐÔ‡XÖ#Xõô¹ÔChattanooga,€Tennesseeà  àà Ú à€€Ô#†ô¹õXXÖ#v#ÔATTORNEYS€FOR€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÐ Â# ЀATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEESÔ‡XÖ#Xõô¹Ôà  àà Ú àÐ ®$þ Ðà  àà  àà Ú àÌÌÌÌÌSHELBY€R.€GRUBBSà  àà Ú àE.€CLIFTON€KNOWLESÐ *`%% ÐPAMELA€BLASS€BRACHERà  àà Ú àNashville,€TennesseeÐ ü*L&& ÐT.€MAXFIELD€BAHNERà  àà Ú à€Ô#†ô¹õXXÖ#@ #ÔATTORNEY€FOR€AMERICAN€INSURANCEÐ è+8'' ÐÔ‡XÖ#Xõô¹ÔGARY€D.€LANDERÔ#†ô¹õXXÖ#Û #Ôà  àà Ú à€€€ASSOCIATION,€ALLIANCE€OF€AMERICANÐ Ô,$(( ÐÔ€XÖ#Xõô¹ÔChattanooga,€TennesseeÔ‡ô¹õXXÖ#Ôà  àà Ú à€€€INSURERS€AND€NATIONAL€ASSOCIATIONÔ#†XÖ#Xõô¹± #ÔÐ À-)) ЀÔ€ô¹õXXÖ#ÔATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS€€€€à  à€€€OF€INDEPENDENTÐ ¬.ü)* ÐINSURERSÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  à€€€€à Ú à€€€€à  àà , àà „! à€€€€Ð ^0®+, ÐÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€¼¯»õô¹ÔÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÐ n;¾68 ÐÑ úÑâ  âÑ#€Xÿÿd#Ñâ  âÑ  ÑWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ ¬;ü68¾ ÐÑ úÑâ  âÑ8€ohXXdìdÈ8Ñâ  âÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€„]„»¼'ôÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ ° ÐÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÌÔ€¼'ô»„„]Ôà  àThe€sole€question€presented€by€this€appeal€is€whether€or€not€workers'Ð  p Ðcompensation€insurance,€which€is€an€intangible€contract€right€or€service,€is€anÐ »  Ð"article"€or€"product"€subject€to€the€Tennessee€antitrust€statutes€(TennesseeÐ V ¦ ÐCode€Annotated€sections€47„25„101€and€47„25„103„109).€€If€this€"intangible"Ð ñ A  Ðis€within€the€purview€of€the€act,€then€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€overruling€theÐ ŒÜ  ÐRule€12€motion€of€the€defendants.€€If€such€"intangible"€is€not€within€the€purviewÐ 'w  Ðof€the€statute,€the€Rule€12€motion€is€well€taken€and€the€trial€court€judgment€mustÐ Â  Ðbe€reversed.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€find€that€the€Tennessee€antitrustÐ ]­ Ðstatutes€do€not€apply€to€workersðð€compensation€insurance.€€Accordingly,€the€trialÐ øH Ðcourtððs€decision€must€be€reversed.Ð “ã ÐÌÓ  ÓI.òòà0 @ àóó€€€€€STANDARD€OF€REVIEWÐ É ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThis€case€is€before€the€court€of€appeals€on€an€interlocutory€appeal€fromÐ ÿO Ðthe€judgment€of€the€chancellor€in€denying€the€defendants'€Rule€12.02(6)€motionÐ šê Ðto€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€for€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€Such€aÐ 5 …! Ðmotion€is€to€test€the€sufficiency€of€the€complaint€and€dismissal€is€warranted€onlyÐ Ð! # Ðwhen€no€set€of€facts€would€entitle€the€plaintiff€to€relief.€€On€such€motion,€theÐ k#»% Ðreviewing€court€must€take€all€the€well€pleaded€material€factual€allegations€asÐ %V ' Ðtrue€and€construe€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff.€€òòStein€v.Ð ¡&ñ!) ÐDavidson€Hotel€Co.óó,€945€S.W.2d€714,€716€(Tenn.€1997).Ð <(Œ#+ ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€€€€FACTSÐ r+Â&/ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Tennessee€Workers'€Compensation€Law€requires€all€employers,€withÐ ¨.ø)3 Ðcertain€limited€exceptions,€to€pay€compensation€for€the€death,€disablement€orÐ C0“+5 Ðinjury€of€their€employees.€€Employers€must€fund€those€benefits,€either€byÐ Þ1.-7 Ðpurchasing€workers'€compensation€insurance,€or€by€qualifying€to€self„insure.€Ð y3É.9 ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð50„6„103€(1991),€ðð56„2„201(2)(L)(Supp.€1998).€€Workers'Ð 5d0; Ðcompensation€insurance€policies€are€contracts€between€the€insurer€and€theÐ ¯6ÿ1= Ðemployer,€by€which€the€insurer,€in€return€for€a€premium,€agrees€to€indemnify€theÐ J8š3? Ðemployer€against€all€liabilities€arising€under€the€workers'€compensation€law.€Ð å955A ÐThe€insurer€also€agrees€to€provide€certain€services€ancillary€to€the€promise€toÐ ° Ðindemnify,€such€as€issuance€of€policies,€loss€control€advice€and€administrationÐ K› Ðof€claims.Ð æ6 ÐÌÓB¼8d‚X¸ ,X¼8d‚XÚ,XBÓà  àEmployers€purchase€workers'€compensation€insurance€in€either€theÐ  l Ðvoluntary€market€or€the€residual€(or€assigned€risk)€market.€€In€the€voluntaryÐ ·   Ðmarket,€insurers€voluntarily€and€unilaterally€decide€which€employers€they€wishÐ R¢  Ðto€underwrite.€€Those€employers€that€are€unable€to€obtain€coverage€in€theÐ í=  Ðvoluntary€market€purchase€their€insurance€in€the€residual€market€pursuant€to€aÐ ˆØ  Ðplan€approved€by€the€Commissioner€of€Commerce€and€Insurance€in€which€allÐ #s Ðcarriers€are€required€to€participate€as€an€insurer€of€last€resort.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€CodeÐ ¾ ÐAnn.€ðð€56„5„314(c)(Supp.€1998).Ð Y© ÐÌà  àThe€residual€market€mandate€exposes€insurers€to€significant€risk€becauseÐ ß Ðemployers€insured€in€that€market€typically€have€adverse€loss€experience.€€InÐ *z Ðorder€to€minimize€these€risks€and€satisfy€their€residual€market€obligations,€manyÐ Å Ðinsurers€in€Tennessee€(as€in€other€states)€have€entered€into€a€contractualÐ `°  Ðarrangement€known€as€the€National€Workers'€Compensation€Reinsurance€PoolÐ ûK" Ð(ð ðthe€Pool").€€Under€this€arrangement,€certain€carriers,€known€as€"servicingÐ –!æ$ Ðcarriers,"€write€policies€for€residual€market€insureds€which€are€then€reinsured€byÐ 1#& Ðthe€Pool's€participating€companies.€€Like€carriers€in€the€voluntary€market,Ð Ì$ ( Ðservicing€carriers€investigate€and€pay€claims€and€provide€loss€control€and€otherÐ g&·!* Ðservices€to€their€insureds.€€The€companies€participating€in€the€Pool€pay€theÐ (R#, Ðservicing€carriers€a€"servicing€carrier€allowance"€as€reimbursement€for€theirÐ )í$. Ðexpenses€in€providing€these€insurance€services,€plus€a€reasonable€profit.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 8+ˆ&0 ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ (5h83ÓÓ  ÓIII.à0 @ àà0 @ àà0 @ à€€€€€ISSUEÐ n.¾)4 ÐÌÓ  Óà  àPlaintiffs€in€this€lawsuit€are€various€corporations€which€have€purchasedÐ ¤1ô,8 Ðworkersðð€compensation€insurance.€€They€have€brought€this€class€action€on€behalfÐ ?3.: Ðof€ð ðall€employers€.€.€.€who€purchased€workersðð€compensation€insurance€inÐ Ú4*0< ÐTennessee€since€January€1,€1985.ðð€€Defendants€are€thirteen€workersððÐ ° Ðcompensation€insurers€doing€business€in€Tennessee,€a€national€workersððÐ K› Ðcompensation€rate€service€organization€licensed€in€Tennessee,€and€a€nationalÐ æ6 Ðworkersðð€compensation€reinsurance€pool€(referred€to€above€as€ð ðthe€Poolðð)€alsoÐ  Ñ Ðoperating€in€Tennessee.€€Ð  l ÐÌà  àAgainst€the€undisputed€factual€background€outlined€above,€PlaintiffsÐ R¢  Ðcomplain€that€Defendants€entered€into€an€agreement€to€inflate€workers'Ð í=  Ðcompensation€insurance€rates€by€charging€an€excessive€servicing€carrierÐ ˆØ  Ðallowance.€€They€allege€that€"[D]efendants€and€their€co„conspirators€combined,Ð #s Ðconspired€and€agreed€together€to€establish€unreasonably€high€andÐ ¾ Ðnoncompetitive€servicing€carrier€compensation."€€They€assert€that€DefendantsÐ Y© Ðshould€have€determined€the€allowance€by€competitive€bidding€rather€than€usingÐ ôD Ðan€NCCI€formula€based€on€actual€insurer€expenses.€€Since€Plaintiffs,€as€insureds,Ð ß Ðdo€not€pay€the€service€carrier€allowance,€they€do€not€allege€direct€injury€byÐ *z Ðreason€of€the€excessive€allowance.€€They€contend€that€the€excessive€allowanceÐ Å Ðwas€passed€through€to€rate€payers€in€the€form€of€higher€rates€with€the€result€thatÐ `°  Ðemployers€in€Tennessee,€in€both€the€voluntary€and€residual€markets,€have€beenÐ ûK" Ðinjured€by€paying€excessive€premiums€for€workers'€compensation€insurance.€Ð –!æ$ ÐThey€further€allege€that€the€excessive€allowance€increased€the€deficit€in€theÐ 1#& Ðresidual€market€which€deficit€in€turn€was€assessed€against€the€Pool€participatingÐ Ì$ ( Ðcompanies.€€This€caused€these€companies€to€reduce€their€underwriting€in€theÐ g&·!* Ðvoluntary€market€thus€forcing€more€employers€to€obtain€coverage€in€the€residualÐ (R#, Ðmarket€at€higher€rates.€€Plaintiffs€seek€recovery€for€the€full€amount€of€theÐ )í$. Ðallegedly€excessive€premiums€they€were€charged€for€their€workers'Ð 8+ˆ&0 Ðcompensation€insurance€policies.Ð Ó,#(2 ÐÌà  àThe€provisions€in€the€Trade€Practices€Act€which€are€material€to€this€caseÐ  0Y+6 Ðare€as€follows:Ð ¤1ô,8 ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àAll€arrangements,€contracts,€agreements,€trusts€or€combinationÐ ?3.: Ðbetween€persons€or€corporations€made€with€a€view€to€lessen,€orÐ Q4¡/; Ðwhich€tend€to€lessen,€full€and€free€competition€in€the€importationÐ c5³0< Ðor€sale€of€articles€imported€into€this€state,€or€in€the€manufacture€orÐ u6Å1= Ðsale€of€articles€of€domestic€growth€or€domestic€raw€material,€andÐ ‡7×2> Ðall€arrangements,€contracts,€agreements,€trusts,€or€combinationsÐ ™8é3? Ðbetween€persons€or€corporations€designed,€or€which€tend,€toÐ «9û4@ Ðadvance,€reduce,€or€control€the€price€or€the€cost€to€the€producer€orÐ ° Ðthe€consumer€of€any€such€product€or€article,€are€declared€to€beÐ Â Ðagainst€public€policy,€unlawful€and€void.ÐÔ$ ü! ü! ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„25„101€(1995).Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8¸  ü! ü!àAny€person€who€is€injured€or€damaged€by€any€suchÐ  l Ðarrangement,€contract,€agreement,€trust,€or€combinationÐ . ~ Ðdescribed€in€this€part€may€sue€for€and€recover,€in€anyÐ @  Ðcourt€of€competent€jurisdiction,€from€any€personÐ R¢  Ðoperating€such€trust€or€combination,€the€full€considerationÐ d´  Ðor€sum€paid€by€the€person€for€any€goods,€wares,Ð vÆ  Ðmerchandise€or€articles,€the€sale€of€which€is€controlled€byÐ ˆØ  Ðsuch€combination€or€trust.Ðšê ¸ X ¸ X  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„25„106€(1995).Ð ¾ ÐÌÌÓ€Óà  àThe€case€turns€entirely€on€whether€or€not€increased€costs€of€workers'Ð ôD Ðcompensation€insurance€involves€a€"product€or€article"€within€the€meaning€ofÐ ß ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„25„101.€€The€critical€phraseology€of€theÐ *z Ðstatute€has€remained€unchanged€since€1903,€and€reported€cases€dealing€with€thisÐ Å Ðsubject€are€few€and€far€between.€€Plaintiffs€rely€heavily€on€certain€language€inÐ `° Ðthe€opinion€of€the€supreme€court€in€òòStandard€Oil€Co.€v.€Stateóó,€117€Tenn.€618,Ð ûK Ð643,€100€S.W.€705,€711€(1907):Ð –!æ ÐÓ€Óà8  àThe€Legislature€clearly€intended€to€prohibit€trusts,€combinations,Ð 1#  Ðand€agreements€affecting€all€commerce€not€covered€by€the€federalÐ C$“! Ðstatute,€and€upon€which€it€had€a€right€to€legislate.€€It€did€not€intendÐ U%¥ " Ðto€stop€short€of€its€power€or€to€exceed€it.Ðg&·!# ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓDefendants€insist€that€this€expansive€language€in€òòStandard€Oilóó€is€obiter€dictumÐ ‹(Û#% Ðand€that€the€supreme€court€case€of€òòMcAdoo€Contractors,€Inc.€v.€Harrisóó,€isÐ &*v%' Ðdeterminative.€€In€òòMcAdooóó,€the€court€held€as€follows:Ð Á+') ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àWe€think€it€clear€upon€reading€T.C.A.€ðð€69„101€that€it€has€noÐ \-¬(+ Ðapplication€under€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case.€€TheÐ n.¾), Ðstatute€in€express€terms€applies€to€òòarticlesóó€of€foreign€and€domesticÐ €/Ð*- Ðorigin,€so€that€it€would€be€virtually€impossible€to€bring€under€theÐ ’0â+. Ðstatute€a€case€involving€only€the€award€of€a€building€constructionÐ ¤1ô,/ Ðcontract.€€It€would€seem€the€statute€would€in€such€case€apply€onlyÐ ¶2.0 Ðto€an€unlawful€effort€to€control€the€price€of€the€building€material,Ð È3/1 Ðand€not€to€the€award€of€the€contract€where€control€of€cost€ofÐ Ú4*02 Ðarticles€was€not€a€factor.Ðì5<13 ü! ü! ÐÌ222€Tenn.€623,€631,€439€S.W.2d€594,€597€(1969).Ð 8`35 ÐÐ "9r46 ÐÓ€Óà  àThe€supreme€court€has€held€that€ð ð[o]biter€dictum€does€not€control€theÐ ° Ðdecision€in€a€subsequent€suit€when€the€point€which€was€obiter€dictum€is,€in€aÐ K› Ðsubsequent€case,€presented€for€decision.€€òòóóStatements€contained€in€an€opinion€areÐ æ6 Ðauthority€in€subsequent€cases€ððon€only€the€point€in€judgment€arising€in€theÐ  Ñ Ðparticular€case€before€the€Court.ðð€ðð€òòBomar€v.€State,óó€312€S.W.2d€174,€178€(Tenn.Ð  l Ð1958)€òòóó(citations€omitted).€€Further€expressing€the€basis€of€this€long€settled€rule,Ð ·   Ðthe€supreme€court€stated€the€law€as€follows:Ð R¢  ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àIn€the€case€of€òòState€ex€rel.€Pitts€v.€Nashville€Baseball€Clubóó,Ð í=  Ð127€Tenn.€292,€307,€154€S.W.€1151,€1155,€the€Court€through€Mr.Ð ÿO  ÐJustice€Green,€later€Chief€Justice,€said:Ða  ü! ü! ÐÓB¼8d‚X¸ ä ,X¼8d‚X¸ ,XBÓà8  àð ðIt€is€a€familiar€principle€that€stare€decisis€only€applies€withÐ #s Ðreference€to€decisions€directly€upon€the€point€in€à8@Ô ü! ü!àcontroversy.€...òòóóOnly€the€points€in€judgment€arising€in€a€particular€case€before€theÐ 5… Ðcourt€are€precedents€for€future€à8 @ àdecisions.€€òòóóThe€Supreme€Court€of€the€UnitedÐ G— ÐStates€has€said:€ððDoubtless€the€doctrine€of€stare€decisis€is€a€salutary€one€and€toÐ Y© Ðbe€adhered€to€on€all€proper€occasions;€but€it€only€arises€in€respect€of€decisionsÐ k» Ðdirectly€upon€the€points€in€issue.ðð€ðð€€òòóóÐ }Í Ðà8  àà ¸ àIt€is€familiar€law€that€a€decision€is€authority€for€the€point€orÐ ß Ðpoints€decided,€and€nothing€more,€and€that€general€expressions€inÐ ¡ñ Ðan€opinion€are€to€be€taken€in€connection€with€the€case€in€whichÐ ³ Ðthey€were€used,€and€when€they€go€beyond€that,€they€are€notÐ Å Ðauthority€for€another€case.€€òòóóÐ×' ü! ü! Ðà8  àà ¸ àThe€words€of€Mr.€Chief€Justice€Marshall€expressed€in€the€caseÐ é9 Ðof€òòCohens€v.€Commonwealth€of€Virginiaóó,€6€Wheat€264,€398,€19Ð ûK ÐU.S.€264,€398,€5€L.Ed.€257,€290,€are€also€applicable€when€he€said:€Ð  !] Ð"It€is€a€maxim€not€to€be€disregarded,€that€general€expressions,€inÐ "o Ðevery€opinion,€are€to€be€taken€in€connection€with€the€case€in€whichÐ 1#  Ðthose€expressions€are€used."ÐC$“! ü! ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓShousha€v.€Matthews€Drivurself€Serv.,€Inc.óó,€210€Tenn.€384,€389„90,€358€S.W.2dÐ g&·!# Ð471,€473„74€(1962)€(citations€omitted).Ð (R#% ÐÌà  àThe€òòStandard€Oil€óócase€involved€a€two€count€criminal€indictment€forÐ 8+ˆ&) Ðantitrust€violations€under€what€is€now€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€47„Ð Ó,#(+ Ð25„101€and€Ô_Ô103„109Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô.Ô_Ô€€The€item€being€sold€was€a€òòóóquantity€of€coal€oil€which€noÐ n.¾)- Ðone€could€successfully€assert€was€not€a€"product€or€article"€as€defined€in€sectionÐ  0Y+/ Ð47„25„101.€€The€previous€quotation€herein€from€òòStandard€Oilóó€must€beÐ ¤1ô,1 Ðconsidered€in€the€context€in€which€it€was€made:€€Ð ?3.3 ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àThe€Legislature€was€cognizant,€we€must€presume,€that€it€hadÐ Ú4*05 Ðno€power€to€enact€laws€regulating€interstate€commerce,€and€did€notÐ ì5<16 Ðintend€to€enact€an€unconstitutional€law,€in€whole€or€in€part.€€ThereÐ þ6N27 Ðwas€already€then€in€force€an€act€of€Congress,€the€Sherman€antitrustÐ 8`38 Ðact,€enacted€in€1890,€fully€covering€that€subject,€the€provisions€ofÐ "9r49 Ðwhich€were€much€broader€and€more€effective€than€those€of€this€act,Ð ° Ðand€could€be€enforced€to€their€fullest€extent€by€the€stronger€andÐ Â Ðmore€vigorous€government.€€There€was€neither€the€power€nor€theÐ Ô$ Ðnecessity€for€enacting€any€legislation€relative€to€interstateÐ æ6 Ðcommerce.€€The€wrongs€to€trade€which€were€intended€to€beÐ øH Ðcorrected€and€punished€were€those€being€perpetrated€againstÐ  Z Ðcommerce€within€the€state,€which€Congress€could€not€reach,€andÐ  l Ðfor€which€there€was€then€no€efficient€remedy.Ð. ~ ü! ü! Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€.€.€.€à  àÐ @  Ðà8  à.€.€.€The€Legislature€clearly€intended€to€prohibit€trusts,Ð R¢  Ðcombinations,€and€agreements€affecting€all€commerce€not€coveredÐ d´  Ðby€the€federal€statute,€and€upon€which€it€had€a€right€to€legislate.€€ItÐ vÆ  Ðdid€not€intend€to€stop€short€of€its€power€or€to€exceed€it.ÐˆØ  ü! ü! ÐÌòòStandard€Oilóó,€100€S.W.€at€710„11.Ð ¬ü ÐÌÌÓ€Óà  àThe€Sherman€Antitrust€Act€from€its€enactment€in€1890€has€provided€inÐ â2 Ðpertinent€part:€€"Every€contract,€combination€...€or€conspiracy,€in€restraint€ofÐ }Í Ðtrade€or€commerce€among€the€several€states€...€is€declared€to€be€illegal."€€15Ð h ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1€(1995).€€To€give€to€the€Tennessee€Trade€Practice€Act€òòóóthe€expansiveÐ ³ Ðeffect€asserted€by€dictum€in€òòStandard€Oilóó€would€require€a€holding€that€"trade€orÐ Nž Ðcommerce"€as€used€in€the€Sherman€Act€and€"such€product€or€article"€as€used€inÐ é9 ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„25„101€are€synonymous€phrases.Ð „ Ô ÐÌà  àIn€òòStandard€Oilóó,€the€conviction€of€one€of€the€appellants,€Mr.€Holt,€was€Ð º# ! Ðòòóóaffirmed€by€the€supreme€court€not€because€of€such€purported€expanded€scopeÐ U%¥ # Ðof€section€47„25„101€but€rather€on€the€indisputable€fact€that€quantities€of€coalÐ ð&@"% Ðoil€were€"articles"€within€the€plain€meaning€of€the€statute.€€The€expanded€scopeÐ ‹(Û#' Ðdiscussion€was€not€necessary€to€the€decision€in€the€case€and€it€is€not€bindingÐ &*v%) Ðprecedent.€€òòSee€Rush€v.€Chattanooga€DuPont€Employees€Credit€Unionóó,€210Ð Á+'+ ÐTenn.€344,€358€S.W.2d€333€(1962).Ð \-¬(- ÐÌà  àThe€same€quantities€of€coal€oil€came€back€to€haunt€Standard€Oil€again€inÐ ’0â+1 ÐòòState€v.€Standard€Oil€Co.óó,€120€Tenn.€86,€110€S.W.€565€(1908),€òòaffððdóó,€217€U.S.Ð -2}-3 Ð413,€30€S.Ct.€543,€54€L.Ed.€817€(1910).€€In€that€case,€the€State€soughtÐ È3/5 Ðsuccessfully€a€perpetual€injunction€restraining€Standard€Oil€from€doing€intrastateÐ c5³07 Ðbusiness€within€the€state€of€Tennessee.€€This€injunctive€action€was€based€uponÐ þ6N29 Ðthe€same€facts€and€the€same€quantities€of€coal€oil€as€had€formed€the€predicate€forÐ ™8é3; Ðthe€conviction€of€Mr.€Holt€in€òòStandard€Oil€Co.€v.€Stateóó,€117€Tenn.€618,€100Ð ° ÐS.W.705€(Tenn.€1907).€€This€second€supreme€court€opinion,€which€we€can€callÐ K› Ð"òòStandard€Oil€II,óó"€reiterated€the€same€dicta€as€to€the€scope€of€what€is€nowÐ æ6 ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„25„101€as€was€asserted€in€"òòStandard€OilÐ  Ñ ÐI.óó"Ð  l ÐÌà  àIt€simply€cannot€be€successfully€argued€consistent€with€the€plain€meaningÐ R¢  Ðof€the€English€language€that€"product€or€article"€and€"trade€or€commerce"€areÐ í=  Ðsynonymous€terms.€€The€distinctions€between€such€terminology€are€sharplyÐ ˆØ  Ðdrawn€in€the€analogous€case€of€òòSouthTrust€Corp.€v.€Plus€Sys.,€Inc.óó,€913€F.Supp.Ð #s Ð1517€(N.D.€Ala.€1995).€€Alabama€Code€section€8„10„1€prohibited€actionsÐ ¾ Ðdesigned€"to€regulate€or€fix€the€price€of€any€article€or€commodity."€€AlabamaÐ Y© ÐCode€section€8„10„3€prohibited€efforts€to€"restrain€or€attempt€to€restrain€theÐ ôD Ðfreedom€of€trade€or€production€."€€SouthTrust€Corporation€was€a€registered€bankÐ ß Ðholding€company€providing€banking€services€in€Alabama,€Florida€and€otherÐ *z Ðstates€and€was€a€member€of€the€Plus€Systems,€Inc.€network.€€Plus€Systems,€Inc.Ð Å Ðwas€organized€to€administer€a€national€network€of€automated€teller€machines.€Ð `°  ÐAs€a€part€of€the€contract€between€SouthTrust€and€Plus€Systems,€SouthTrust€wasÐ ûK" Ðprohibited€from€surcharging€for€use€of€ATMs.€€SouthTrust€brought€suit€chargingÐ –!æ$ Ða€conspiracy€between€Plus€Systems,€Inc.€and€certain€of€its€licensees€for€allegedÐ 1#& Ðantitrust€violations€under€the€Sherman€Antitrust€Act€and€also€under€AlabamaÐ Ì$ ( ÐCode€sections€8„10„1€and€8„10„3.€€Ð g&·!* ÐÌà  àAfter€strongly€questioning€the€standing€of€SouthTrust€to€sue€under€sectionÐ )í$. Ð4€of€the€Clayton€Act,€15€U.S.C.€ðð€15,€the€court€assumed€the€plaintiff€to€haveÐ 8+ˆ&0 Ðstanding€and€analyzed€the€claim€of€SouthTrust€in€response€to€a€motion€forÐ Ó,#(2 Ðsummary€judgment€filed€by€Plus€Systems.€€The€court€first€decided€that€theÐ n.¾)4 Ðcontract€was€not€"per€se€illegal"€under€the€Sherman€Act.€€òòSee€Northern€Pac.€Ry.Ð  0Y+6 Ðv.€United€Statesóó,€356€U.S.€1,€5,€78€S.Ct.€514,€518,€2€L.Ed.2d€545€(1958).€€ThisÐ ¤1ô,8 Ðleft€only€a€"rule€of€reason"€analysis€under€the€Sherman€Act.€€òòSee€NationalÐ ?3.: ÐBancard€Corp.€(NaBanco)€v.€Visa€U.S.A.óó,òò€Inc.,óó€596€F.Supp.€1231,€1259€(S.D.Ð Ú4*0< ÐFla.€1984),€€òòaff'dóó.,€779€F.2d€592,€598„603€(11th€Cir.€1986),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€479Ð u6Å1> ÐU.S.€923,€107€S.Ct.€329,€93€L.Ed.2d€301€(1986).€€In€sustaining€the€motion€forÐ 8`3@ Ðsummary€judgment€of€Plus€Systems,€the€court€held:Ð «9û4B ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àIn€òòNaBancoóó,€the€Eleventh€Circuit€upheld€the€lower€court'sÐ ° Ðfinding€that€even€if€VISA€had€market€power€in€the€relevant€market,Ð Â Ðthe€interchange€fee€was€procompetitive,€and€thus€not€illegal€underÐ Ô$ Ða€rule€of€reason€analysis.€€òòNaBancoóó,€779€F.2d€592,€605.€€The€courtÐ æ6 Ðin€òòNaBancoóó€accepted€VISA's€argument€that€the€credit€cardÐ øH Ðprocessing€service€was€a€joint€venture„type€enterprise€in€which€theÐ  Z Ðinterchange€fee€acted€as€an€internal€control€mechanism€that€yieldedÐ  l Ðprocompetitive€efficiencies€that€its€members€could€not€createÐ . ~ Ðacting€alone.€€òòNaBancoóó,€at€604.€€The€same€analysis€applies€here.€Ð @  ÐThe€no„surcharge€rule€challenged€in€the€present€case€creates€similarÐ R¢  Ðeconomic€efficiencies.€€There€must€be€an€advance€agreement„„aÐ d´  Ðsystem„wide€rule€governing€payment€for€network€transactions„„inÐ vÆ  Ðorder€to€have€a€system.€€The€joint€venturers€who€join€to€create€theÐ ˆØ  Ðnetwork€agree€in€advance€on€the€pricing€of€the€system€and€theÐ šê  Ðrevenues'€distribution€in€order€to€lend€stability€to€the€system.€€TheÐ ¬ü Ðno„surcharge€rule€creates€price€certainty,€so€that€customers€do€notÐ ¾ Ðhave€to€spend€large€amounts€of€time€seeking€the€lowest€fee€for€anÐ Ð  ÐATM€transaction.Ðâ2 ü! ü! ÐÌòòSouthTrust€Corp.,€óó913€F.Supp.€at€1524.€€Ó€ÓThereafter,€the€court€disposed€of€theÐ V ÐAlabama€state€claims€in€a€manner€that€clearly€articulates€the€distinction€betweenÐ ¡ñ Ð"articles€or€commodities"€on€the€one€hand€and€"freedom€of€trade"€on€the€other.€Ð <Œ ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àSouthTrust€has€asserted€claims€against€Plus€under€AlabamaÐ ×' ÐCode€ðððð€8„10„1€and€8„10„3.€€Section€8„10„1€provides€that€personsÐ é9 Ðwho€engage€or€agree€with€other€persons€to€regulate€or€fix€the€priceÐ ûK Ðof€articles€or€commodities€shall€be€liable.€€The€ATM€servicesÐ  !] Ðchallenged€in€the€present€case€are€not€articles€or€commodities,€andÐ "o Ðthus€do€not€fall€within€the€ambit€of€ðð€8„10„1.€€Section€8„10„3Ð 1# Ðprovides€in€part€that€persons€or€corporations€which€restrain€theÐ C$“ Ðfreedom€of€trade€or€production,€or€attempt€to€destroy€competitionÐ U%¥  Ðshall€be€liable.€€According€to€this€court's€analysis,€òòsupraóó,€that€PlusÐ g&·!! Ðdoes€not€have€sufficient€market€power€and€that€the€challengedÐ y'É"" Ðrestraint€is€ultimately€pro„competitive,€SouthTrust's€claim€that€theÐ ‹(Û## Ðregulations€violate€ðð€8„10„3€also€fail€as€a€matter€of€law.Ð)í$$ ü! ü! ÐÌòòId.óó€at€1525.Ð Á+'& ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àJust€as€ATM€services€do€not€qualify€as€"articles€or€commodities"€underÐ n.¾)) Ðthe€Alabama€statute,€so€insurance€premiums€do€not€qualify€as€"product(s)€orÐ  0Y++ Ðarticle(s)"€within€the€meaning€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„25„101.€Ð ¤1ô,- ÐSuch€is€precisely€in€keeping€with€the€holding€of€the€supreme€court€in€òòMcAdooÐ ?3./ ÐContractors,€Inc.€v.€Harrisóó,€222€Tenn.€623,€439€S.W.2d€594€(1969).€€InÐ Ú4*01 ÐòòMcAdooóó,€Carroll€County€invited€bids€for€the€construction€of€a€warehouse€to€beÐ u6Å13 Ðleased€to€Henry€I.€Siegel€Company,€Inc.€€McAdoo€Contractors,€Inc.€was€the€lowÐ 8`35 Ðbidder€but€Carroll€County€decided€instead€to€award€the€contract€to€the€next€lowÐ «9û47 Ðbidder,€Forcum„Lannom,€Inc.,€such€award€being€strongly€recommended€to€theÐ ° Ðcounty€by€Henry€I.€Siegel€Company.€€McAdoo€Contractors€then€filed€suitÐ K› Ðagainst€the€county,€its€architect,€and€the€county€judge,€together€with€Henry€I.Ð æ6 ÐSiegel€Company,€Inc.€and€Forcum„Lannom,€Inc.,€alleging€that€they€fraudulentlyÐ  Ñ Ðconspired€to€deprive€the€complainant€of€a€contract€and€that€they€had€entered€intoÐ  l Ða€combination€in€restraint€of€trade,€contrary€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ·   Ðsection€69„101€which€is€now€codified€at€section€47„25„101.Ð R¢  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€sustained€a€plea€in€abatement€by€the€county€judge€andÐ ˆØ  Ðdemurrers€by€all€other€defendants.€€On€appeal,€the€supreme€court€found€theÐ #s Ðallegations€of€fraud€and€conspiracy€to€be€insufficient€in€law.€€Turning€to€theÐ ¾ Ðallegations€of€combination€in€restraint€of€trade,€the€supreme€court€held:Ð Y© ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àWe€think€it€clear€upon€reading€T.C.A.€ðð€69„101€that€it€has€noÐ ôD Ðapplication€under€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case.€€TheÐ V Ðstatute€in€express€terms€applies€to€òòarticlesóó€of€foreign€and€domesticÐ h Ðorigin,€so€that€it€would€be€virtually€impossible€to€bring€under€theÐ *z Ðstatute€a€case€involving€only€the€award€of€a€building€constructionÐ <Œ Ðcontract.€€It€would€seem€the€statute€would€in€such€case€apply€onlyÐ Nž Ðto€an€unlawful€effort€to€control€the€price€of€the€building€material,Ð `° Ðand€not€to€the€award€of€the€contract€where€control€of€cost€ofÐ r Ðarticles€was€not€a€factor.€€Ð„ Ô  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà ¸ àOn€the€basis€of€the€well€pleaded€facts,€the€sole€reason€McAdooÐ –!æ! Ðdid€not€get€the€contract,€was€not€because€of€arrangements€orÐ ¨"ø" Ðagreements€with€respect€to€competition€in€articles€of€foreign€orÐ º# # Ðdomestic€origin,€but€because€Carroll€County€had€reserved€to€itselfÐ Ì$ $ Ðthe€right€to€award€it€to€any€bidder€it€might€choose.€€And€actingÐ Þ%.!% Ðunder€this€reservation,€the€contract€was€awarded€by€Carroll€CountyÐ ð&@"& Ðto€Forcum„Lannom,€which€its€responsible€advisers€thought€to€beÐ (R#' Ðmore€experienced.Ð)d$( ü! ü! Ðà8  àà ¸ àBefore€the€statute€could€apply,€it€would€be€necessary€to€findÐ &*v%) Ðand€hold€that€this€kind€of€contract€provision€has€been€outlawed€byÐ 8+ˆ&* Ðthis€Code€section.€€But€this€is€so€obviously€not€the€case€that€evenÐ J,š'+ Ðcomplainant€does€not€make€this€contention.Ð\-¬(, ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓòòMcAdooóó,€439€S.W.2d€at€597„98.Ð €/Ð*. ÐÌà  àNaturally€the€position€of€Plaintiffs€is€that€the€òòMcAdooóó€treatment€of€sectionÐ ¶2.2 Ð69„101,€now€section€47„25„101,€is€dictum.€€Such€is€not€the€case,€however,€as€theÐ Q4¡/4 Ðapplicability€of€the€statute€was€directly€in€issue€in€the€alternative€allegations€ofÐ ì5<16 Ðthe€complaint€as€to€combination€and€restraint€of€trade.€€The€supreme€court€hasÐ ‡7×28 Ðheld:Ð "9r4: ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àIt€is€said€by€[the€plaintiff]€that€the€holding€above€quoted€isÐ ° Ðdictum€since€it€was€not€necessary€to€a€decision€of€the€case.€€(It€hadÐ Â Ðbeen€decided€that€the€seven€year€statute€of€limitations€applied.)€Ð Ô$ ÐHowever,€the€question€of€equitable€estoppel€was€fairly€raised.€Ð æ6 ÐTherefore,€the€above€decision€embodied€in€the€above€quotation€wasÐ øH Ðnot€dictum.€€In€the€case€of€òòMcFarland€v.€Bushóó,€94€Tenn.€538,€542,Ð  Z Ð29€S.W.€899,€900,€27€L.R.A.€662,€45€Am.St.Rep.€760,€this€Court,Ð  l Ðin€passing€upon€the€same€insistence€as€here€made€said:€€"Two€orÐ . ~ Ðmore€questions€properly€arising€in€a€case€under€the€pleadings€andÐ @  Ðproof€may€be€determined,€even€though€either€one€would€haveÐ R¢  Ðdisposed€of€the€entire€case€on€its€merits€without€the€other,€andÐ d´  Ðneither€holding€will€be€a€dictum€so€long€as€it€is€properly€raised€andÐ vÆ  Ðconsidered."ÐˆØ  ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓòòDaugherty€v.€Toomeyóó,€189€Tenn.€54,€222€S.W.2d€197,€199€(1949).€€In€òòPorter€v.Ð ¬ü ÐLee,€óó88€Tenn.€782,€14€S.W.€218,€220€(1890),€the€supreme€court€said:Ð G— ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àThis€language€is€none€the€less€an€adjudication,€and€binding€asÐ â2 Ðsuch,€because€another€question€conclusive€of€the€case€wasÐ ôD Ðconsidered€and€decided€in€an€earlier€part€of€the€opinion.€€That€otherÐ V Ðquestion€and€the€construction€of€the€statute€were€alike€before€theÐ h Ðcourt,€and€the€decree€was€based€upon€both€grounds.€€As€to€both,€theÐ *z Ðdecision€was€a€legitimate€adjudication;€as€to€neither€was€it€a€mereÐ <Œ Ðòòdictumóó.ÐNž ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓAgain,€in€òòBates€v.€Taylor,€óó87€Tenn.€319,€11€S.W.€266,€267€(1889),€the€supremeÐ r Ðcourt€held:Ð  !] ÐÓ€Ó€à8  àBut€it€is€now€argued€that€so€much€of€the€opinion€in€that€case€asÐ ¨"ø Ðrelates€to€the€question€of€jurisdiction€was€òòobiter€dictumóó,€becauseÐ º#  Ðthe€question€decided€in€an€earlier€part€of€the€opinion€wasÐ Ì$  Ðconclusive€of€the€case.€€This€cannot€be€so.€€Both€questions€wereÐ Þ%.!! Ðfairly€raised€by€the€record,€and€the€fact€that€the€question€ofÐ ð&@"" Ðjurisdiction€was€discussed€last€does€not€make€it€any€the€lessÐ (R## Ðentitled€to€the€force€of€an€adjudication.Ð)d$$ ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓFinally,€in€òòBush€v.€McFarlandóó,€94€Tenn.€538,€29€S.W.€899,€900€(1895),€theÐ 8+ˆ&& Ðsupreme€court€held:Ð Ó,#(( ÐÓ€Óà8  àIt€is€said€this€decision€is€a€dictum€on€this€point,€the€argument€beingÐ n.¾)* Ðthat€there€were€other€questions€involved€in€it,€upon€which€theÐ €/Ð*+ Ðdecision€could€have€been€and€would€have€been€rested.€€Grant€thisÐ ’0â+, Ðto€be€so.€€It€does€not€make€the€holding€and€opinion€in€that€case€aÐ ¤1ô,- Ðdictum.€€The€question€was€fairly€and€directly€involved,€fullyÐ ¶2.. Ðconsidered,€and€deliberately€passed€upon.€€The€fact€that€theÐ È3// Ðdecision€may€have€been€rested€on€a€different€ground,€even€thoughÐ Ú4*00 Ðone€more€satisfactory,€does€not€place€the€decision€in€the€categoryÐ ì5<11 Ðof€a€dictum,€if€the€question€was€fairly€raised€and€duly€consideredÐ þ6N22 Ðand€decided...€.Ð8`33 ü! ü! ÐÐ "9r44 ÐÓ€ÓThe€difference€in€òòobiter€dictumóó€status€between€òòStandard€Oil€óóand€òòMcAdooóó,€liesÐ ° Ðin€the€fact€that€the€scope€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„25„101€wasÐ K› Ðnot€in€issue€in€òòStandard€Oil,óó€but€was€directly€in€issue€in€òòMcAdooóó.Ð æ6 ÐÌà  àThe€position€of€the€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€as€òòamicus€curiaóó,€whenÐ  l Ðone€cuts€through€the€verbiage€and€gets€to€the€heart€of€its€brief,€is€that€TennesseeÐ ·   ÐCode€Annotated€sections€47„25„101€òòóóand€Ô_Ô103„109Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€is€an€intrastate€Sherman€Act.€Ð R¢  ÐThe€only€real€authority€for€this€position€is€the€òòStandard€Oil€Ióó€dicta€asserting€theÐ í=  Ðsame€thing.€€In€his€brief,€the€Attorney€General€states:€€Ð ˆØ  ÐÓ€Óà8  àSince€its€inception,€the€scope€of€Trade€Practices€Act,€€Tenn.€CodeÐ #s ÐAnn.€ðððð€47„25„101,€òòet€seq.óó,€has€been€construed€by€TennesseeÐ 5… Ðcourts€to€cover€all€manner€and€form€of€intrastate€commerce,Ð G— Ðwhether€tangible€or€intangible.€€The€Trade€Practices€Act€covers:€Ð Y© Ðð ðEvery€conceivable€...€agreement€or€contract€made€to€lessen€orÐ k» Ðdestroy€competition€and€control€prices.ðð€€òòStandard€Oil€Co.€v.€Stateóó,Ð }Í Ð100€S.W.€705,€716€(Tenn.€1907).€€The€broad€language€of€the€TradeÐ ß ÐPractices€Act€has€been€expansively€interpreted€by€TennesseeÐ ¡ñ Ðcourts.г ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓExcept€for€thirteen€separate€citations€of€òòStandard€Oilóó,€the€Attorney€General€hasÐ ×' Ðbeen€no€more€successful€than€any€of€the€other€parties€in€citing€Tennessee€casesÐ r Ð"expansively"€construing€what€is€a€"product"€or€an€"article"€within€the€meaningÐ  !]  Ðof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„25„101.€€Research€by€this€court€hasÐ ¨"ø" Ðmet€a€similar€fate.Ð C$“$ ÐÌà  àAs€the€official€charged€with€the€responsibility€of€enforcing€the€TradeÐ y'É"( ÐPractices€Act€in€Tennessee,€the€Attorney€General€would€be€far€more€free€to€actÐ )d$* Ðif€the€Trade€Practices€Act€were€indeed€an€intrastate€Sherman€Act.€€The€presentÐ ¯*ÿ%, Ðposition€of€the€Attorney€General€is€somewhat€compromised€by€Attorney€GeneralÐ J,š'. Ðopinion€82„455€of€October€5,€1982,€wherein€he€asserts,€in€part:€€"The€provisionsÐ å-5)0 Ðof€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€69„101€may€likewise€be€used,€but€we€note€that€ourÐ €/Ð*2 Ðsupreme€court€has€indicated€that€Section€69„101€does€not€apply€to€intangibles.€Ð 1k,4 ÐòòMcAdoo€Contractors,€Inc.€v.€Harrisóó,€222€Tenn.€623,€439€S.W.2d€594€(1969)."Ð ¶2.6 ÐÌà  àSince€òòMcAdooóó€was€decided€in€1969,€many€separate€attempts€have€beenÐ ì5<1: Ðmade€in€the€General€Assembly€to€amend€the€Trade€Practices€Act€in€order€toÐ ‡7×2< Ðexpand€its€scope.€€In€1975€three€different€bills€were€introduced€(HB207/SB254;Ð "9r4> ÐHB1072/SB1062;€HB1329/SB1351).€€In€1978€HB2366€was€introduced.€€In€1986Ð ° ÐSB1406/HB1979€was€introduced.€€In€1987€SB540/HB694€was€introduced.Ð K› ÐProposed€House€Bill€No.€2366,€introduced€in€the€General€Assembly€in€1978,Ð æ6 Ðwould€have€expressly€added€"services"€to€section€47„25„101.€€Senate€Bill€No.Ð  Ñ Ð1406,€proposed€in€1986,€would€have€broadened€the€act€to€include€"trade€orÐ  l Ðcommerce"€defined€as€"all€forms€of€economic€activity."€€Senate€Bill€No.€540,Ð ·   Ðintroduced€in€1987,€would€have€accomplished€the€same€purpose.€€In€debateÐ R¢  Ðbefore€the€Senate€Commerce€Committee€on€March€4,€1986,€relative€to€SenateÐ í=  ÐBill€No.€1406,€the€sponsor€thereof,€Senator€Douglas€Henry,€observed€in€part:€€Ð ˆØ  ÐÓ€Óà8  àWhat€we€have€here,€Mr.€Chairman,€in€Senate€Bill€1406,€is€the€workÐ #s Ðproduct€of€the€Committee€of€the€Tennessee€Bar€AssociationÐ 5… Ðrepresenting€both€those€who€sue€and€those€who€are€sued,€putÐ G— Ðtogether€and€carefully€ground€out€and€hashed€over€a€period€of€timeÐ Y© Ðin€framing€this€bill,€with€the€positive€assistance€and€participationÐ k» Ðof€General€Doug€Berry€of€our€Attorney€General's€Office,€who€is€theÐ }Í Ðdeputy€in€charge€of€antitrust€litigation€in€that€office.Ðß ü! ü! ÐÓ€ÓÌà  àIn€òòHamby€v.€McDanielóó,€559€S.W.2d€774,€776€(Tenn.€1977)€(citationsÐ <Œ Ðomitted),€our€supreme€court€made€the€following€statement:Ð ×' ÐÓ€Óà8  àà ¸ àThe€legislature€is€presumed€to€know€the€interpretation€whichÐ r Ðcourts€make€of€its€enactments;€the€fact€that€the€legislature€has€notÐ „ Ô  Ðexpressed€disapproval€of€a€judicial€construction€of€a€statute€isÐ –!æ! Ðpersuasive€evidence€of€legislative€adoption€of€the€judicialÐ ¨"ø" Ðconstruction,€especially€where€the€law€is€amended€in€otherÐ º# # Ðparticulars,€or€where€the€statute€is€reenacted€without€change€in€theÐ Ì$ $ Ðpart€construed.€ÐÞ%.!% ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓApplying€this€principle€to€the€case€at€hand,€the€General€Assembly€has€beenÐ (R#' Ðpresented€with€four€opportunities€to€alter€the€òòMcAdooóó€decisionððs€constructionÐ )í$) Ðof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„25„101€and€has€declined€to€do€so€onÐ 8+ˆ&+ Ðeach€of€these€occasions.€€We€acknowledge€that€unsuccessful€attempts€atÐ Ó,#(- Ðlegislation€are€not€the€best€guides€to€legislative€intent,"€òòRed€Lion€BroadcastingÐ n.¾)/ ÐCo.€v.€FCCóó,€395€U.S.€367,€382€n.11,€89€S.Ct.€1794,€1802€n.11,€23€L.Ed.2d€371Ð  0Y+1 Ð(1969),€and€the€"amendment€rejection"€theory€is€a€minority€view,€òòsee€State€v.Ð ¤1ô,3 ÐBellóó,€720€A.2d€311,€317€(Md.€App.€1998);€òòFreeman€v.€Jefferson€Countyóó,€334Ð ?3.5 ÐSo.2d€902,€905€(Ala.€1976).€€However,€all€of€the€legislative€efforts€in€theÐ Ú4*07 ÐTennessee€General€Assembly€were€totally€unnecessary€if€the€present€TradeÐ u6Å19 ÐPractices€Act€covers€"every€conceivable€...€agreement€or€contract€to€lessen€orÐ 8`3; Ðdestroy€competition€and€control€prices,"€as€the€Attorney€General€asserts€in€briefÐ «9û4= Ðrelying€solely€upon€òòStandard€Oil€I.€€óóCourts€have€held€that€nonaction€by€aÐ ° Ðlegislative€body€may€be€a€dubious€guide€but€may€become€significant€whereÐ K› Ðproposals€for€legislative€change€have€been€repeatedly€rejected.€€òòBob€Jones€Univ.Ð æ6 Ðv.€United€Statesóó,€461€U.S.€574,€600„01,€103€S.Ct.€2017,€2032,€76€L.Ed.2d€157Ð  Ñ Ð(1983);€òòBrown€v.€Secretary€of€Health€and€Human€Servs.óó,€46€F.3d€102,€108€(1stÐ  l ÐCir.€1995);€òòWest€Virginia€Assððn€of€Community€Health€Ctrs,€Inc.€v.€Sullivanóó,€737Ð ·   ÐF.Supp.€929,€940€(S.D.W.Va.€1990).Ð R¢  ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.€€€€€CONCLUSIONÐ ˆØ  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€the€final€analysis,€this€case,€Ô_ÔexhaustivelyÔ_Ô€and€brilliantly€briefed€by€allÐ ¾ Ðparties,€is€controlled€by€òòMcAdoo€Contractors,€Inc.€v.€Harrisóó,€439€S.W.2d€594Ð Y© Ð(Tenn.€1969).€€To€paraphrase€Justice€Humphreys€therein,€it€is€clear€thatÐ ôD ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„25„101,€in€express€terms,€applies€toÐ ß Ðarticles€of€foreign€and€domestic€origin€so€that€it€would€be€virtually€impossibleÐ *z Ðto€bring€under€the€statute€€workers'€compensation€insurance,€which€is€anÐ Å Ðintangible€contract€right€or€service.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€thereforeÐ `°  Ðreversed€and€the€case€dismissed€with€costs€assessed€against€the€appellees.Ð ûK" ÐÌÌòò€óóÐ Ì$ ( ÐÓB¼8d‚X¸ ä V,X¼8d‚X¸ ä ,XBÓÓ€Óà  àà ¸ àà ä àà V à_____________________________________Ð g&·!* Ðà  àà ¸ àà ä àà V àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ y'É"+ ÐÌÌCONCUR:Ð ¯*ÿ%. ÐÌÌÌ______________________________________Ð ÷.G*2 ÐBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.Ð  0Y+3 ÐÌÌ______________________________________Ð ?3.6 ÐWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE