ÿWPCÆ Ç·=­Óôiè?­ÿô›Y§öª¯Š”`Ôñ™ 7)‡p¯bè?5QA[²ã³ÀÓsõltÉIJ•ä=ÞZ•ÆÇD2嵯3'b» 85Ÿ¼óü|GÞ›Ël/FKØ9J3o%=ÞEÁUX¸vrÞ›®ÿQ¶IT>²…18ûBè¯P^Rí“+ÜpjÅñ…žmŒdÎ:[”_ ‡û[è]‘ÍõØ„G& lضk%ÒuÃå#±LÓ<[s×A.½º$bþ`×Ì0Ä>ƒ°ðí¹]G”}ÌðΊÜÅÃüûÔÙƒVäÀ¼q•«îÚ¶*ªGC~Lw¸_F³Í-—⦛gä½ÖþSE3LºÄ¿e?+\ ÇÏ1ˆ¤ ãÚ‰üzÆvœYß)DÚ·Ò€³µJ9?ú§A'ëÄ1¸N >®¿;´>¥¬êe‰A‘D@ug×f8£ ™nÜñéøiîI«ßñ 6®¨IkèÞ„‘•­[0oÜ‹sÛ€…ZyîloÃT-¡Oe„PÁtiø¯@QeX{]ÁÊð¦»sBö ¸b+SFãgw‚Ý¡:TÝÏwT‹Öõ ×±¬ˆ–—Žú±öY@Íô|'Fp{‡áÁ»%ä“h¢÷²V?vœ¥b %\^ b 0ˆnU(NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ <™ ÆÕ Æ› ÆaÆ'XíNE 0DG.‹E¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹b»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» 0ëÃÃÃà B®® 0¤Ë D3o D-¢ 0KÏÏ ASÆm 0¤3 0D× A«»4q<1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=ƒ.ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 BeaudreauSeviervilleLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 NÝ ƒR€²$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€this€point€in€the€opinion,€the€California€court€refers€the€reader€to€an€earlier€footnote,€which€states€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€1977,€the€Federal€Reserve€Board€issued€a€decision€interpreting€Regulation€Z€(12Ð 8ˆ ÐÔ_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€Part€226),€which€implemented€the€federal€Truth€in€Lending€Act.€€The€BoardÐ üL Ðruled€that€a€dealer€participation€need€not€be€identified€or€disclosed€in€Truth€inÐ À ÐLending€disclosures€as€a€separate€component€of€the€finance€charge.€€At€the€sameÐ „Ô Ðtime,€the€Board€withdrew€a€proposal€that€would€have€required€separate€disclosureÐ H ˜ Ðof€the€existence,€but€not€the€amount,€of€a€dealer€participation.€€The€Board€concludedÐ  \ Ðthat€disclosure€of€the€total€finance€charge€and€widespread€advertisement€of€creditÐ Ð  Ðterms€afforded€consumers€ð ðthe€most€important€information€with€which€toÐ ” ä  Ðcomparison€shop€for€credit.ðð€€Also,€the€Board€believed€the€addition€of€anotherÐ X ¨  Ðdisclosure€requirement€would€result€in€more€complex€disclosure€statements€andÐ  l  Ðcould€lead€to€confusion€or€misunderstanding€by€consumers.€€(42€Fed.€Reg.€19124„Ð à 0  Ð19125€(Apr.€12,€1977).)€.€.€.€.Фô ` x` x ÐÌò òòòÔ_ÔKunertÔ_Ôó óóó,€1€Cal.€Ô_ÔRptrÔ_Ô.€3d€at€599€n.10.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó $Ý ƒR€²$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhile€the€contract€between€Beaudreau€and€Hill€Pontiac€is€not€in€the€record,€the€complaint€contains€allegationsÐ ° Ðclearly€reflecting€(1)€that€the€transaction€was€memorialized€in€a€retail€installment€sales€contract€between€Beaudreau€andÐ tÄ ÐHill€Pontiac€calling€for€an€interest€rate€of€13.5%€and€(2)€that€this€contract€was€negotiated€by€Hill€Pontiac€to€Ô_ÔGMACÔ_Ô.- ù-(|G2€²$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâÍò»»Ô d(|3ÿs$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿs$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼]»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îPt]ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼]»îîPt #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMarch€22,€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼]ÔÌò òÔ#†¼]»XX ó#ÔPATRICK€BEAUDREAU,€òòet€al.óó€v.€LARRY€HILLÐ úJ ÐPONTIAC/OLDSMOBILE/Ô_ÔGMCÔ_Ô,€INC.òòóóÔ‡X X»¼]Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2000„187„I€€€€€€Ben€W.€Hooper€II,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€€E2003„00440„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€FILED€SEPTEMBER€28,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€a€class€action€lawsuit€filed€by€a€consumer,€Patrick€Beaudreau,€against€a€car€dealer,€Larry€HillÐ ŒÜ ÐPontiac/Oldsmobile/Ô_ÔGMCÔ_Ô,€Inc.€(ð ðHill€Pontiacðð).€€Beaudreau€purchased€an€automobile€from€HillÐ xÈ ÐPontiac€and€the€purchase€was€financed€through€General€Motors€Acceptance€CorporationÐ d´ Ð(ð ðÔ_ÔGMACÔ_Ôðð).Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Beaudreau€alleges,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€Hill€Pontiac€violated€the€Tennessee€ConsumerÐ P  ÐProtection€Act€(ð ðthe€Ô_ÔTCPAÔ_Ôðð)€and€the€Tennessee€Trade€Practices€Act€(ð ðthe€Ô_ÔTTPAÔ_Ôðð)€in€that€it€failedÐ <Œ Ðto€reveal€to€Beaudreau€that€it€had€an€arrangement€with€Ô_ÔGMACÔ_Ô€by€the€terms€of€which€Hill€PontiacÐ (x Ðreceived€a€portion€of€the€interest€rate€charged€to€Beaudreau.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€Ô_ÔBeaudreauÔ_ÔððsÐ d Ðclaims.€€Beaudreau€appeals.€€We€affirm.€€Ð P ÐÓ#ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ Ø( ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼]»àX ½#ÔÔ‡X X.¼]ÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óóÐ œì Ðand€òòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌGordon€Ball,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Patrick€Beaudreau,€on€behalf€of€himself€andÐ `!°  Ðall€others€similarly€situated.Ð L"œ! ÐÌWilliam€A.€Young,€John€W.€Butler,€and€Jeffrey€R.€Thompson,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ $$t# Ðappellee,€Larry€Hill€Pontiac/Oldsmobile/Ô_ÔGMCÔ_Ô,€Inc.Ð %` $ ÐÓ† ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]»XX µ #ÔÔ‡X X»¼]ÔÐ è&8"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼]»XX #ÔÔ‡X X»¼]ÔÓ  ÓÐ  À($(ý ÐÔ_ÔÓ  ÓI.Ð ° ÐÌÓBÓà  àOn€April€12,€1999,€Beaudreau€agreed€to€purchase€an€automobile€from€Hill€Pontiac€inÐ ˆØ ÐSevierville.€€In€order€to€purchase€the€vehicle,€Beaudreau€obtained€financing€ð!ð€with€the€help€of€HillÐ tÄ ÐPontiac€representatives€ð!ð€through€GMAC.€€The€Hill€Pontiac€representatives€informed€Beaudreau€thatÐ `° Ðthe€financing€would€be€subject€to€a€per€annum€interest€rate€of€13.5%,€which€Beaudreau€accepted.€Ð L œ ÐSometime€later,€Beaudreau€learned€that€GMAC€had€quoted€Hill€Pontiac€an€interest€rate€of€11.25%Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€that€Hill€Pontiac€had€added€2.25%€to€that€rate,€thus€arriving€at€the€13.5%€interest€rate.€€ThisÐ $ t Ðpractice€of€a€car€dealer€receiving€a€certain€percentage€of€the€financing€it€arranges€for€its€customersÐ  ` Ðis€commonly€referred€to€as€the€ð ðdealer€reserveðð€or€a€ð ðdealer€participationðð€agreement.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€March€8,€2000,€Beaudreau€filed€a€complaint€against€Hill€Pontiac,€alleging€that€HillÐ Ô$  ÐPontiacððs€practice€of€dealer€reserve€violated€the€TCPA.€€As€additional€grounds,€Beaudreau€raised€theÐ À  Ðissues€of€unjust€enrichment,€money€had€and€received,€and€civil€conspiracy,€among€others.€€In€hisÐ ¬ü  Ðcomplaint,€Beaudreau€sought€class€certification€for€all€Hill€Pontiac€customers€similarly€situated.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àHill€Pontiac€moved€(1)€to€dismiss€the€complaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim,€or,€in€theÐ pÀ Ðalternative,€(2)€for€a€more€definite€statement.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€for€a€more€definiteÐ \¬ Ðstatement€and€took€the€motion€to€dismiss€under€advisement.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àBeaudreau€filed€his€first€amended€complaint€on€April€10,€2001,€and€two€months€later,€HillÐ  p ÐPontiac€renewed€its€motion€to€dismiss,€alleging€that€the€amended€complaint€still€failed€to€state€aÐ  \ Ðclaim.€€The€trial€court€orally€denied€the€motion,€but€it€did€not€enter€an€order€memorializing€its€action.€Ð øH ÐSubsequently,€Hill€Pontiac€filed€an€answer€to€the€amended€complaint,€denying€that€it€was€liable€toÐ ä4 ÐBeaudreau€under€any€of€his€several€theories€of€recovery.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€September,€2002,€Beaudreau€moved€to€certify€the€proposed€class€of€Hill€PontiacÐ ¨ø Ðcustomers,€and€on€November€12,€2002,€Beaudreau€filed€a€motion€requesting€permission€to€file€aÐ ”ä Ðsecond€amended€class€action€complaint.€€The€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€Beaudreauððs€motions€onÐ €Ð ÐNovember€14,€2002.€€At€that€time,€the€trial€court€noted€that€it€had€never€entered€an€order€denying€HillÐ l¼ ÐPontiacððs€renewed€motion€to€dismiss.€€The€court€went€on€to€state€that,€after€reviewing€applicable€caseÐ X ¨ Ðlaw,€it€had€reconsidered€its€previous€ruling.€€It€then€granted€Hill€Pontiacððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€TheÐ D!” Ðcourt€did,€however,€grant€the€plaintiffððs€motion€to€file€a€second€amended€complaint.€€These€rulingsÐ 0"€  Ðwere€confirmed€by€an€order€filed€January€31,€2003.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àOn€March€20,€2003,€the€trial€court€filed€a€supplement€to€its€previous€order,€in€which€it€offeredÐ ô$D # Ðan€explanation€for€its€rationale€in€granting€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€Finding€that€the€cases€relied€uponÐ à%0!$ Ðby€Beaudreau€were€easily€distinguishable€from€his€case,€and€holding€that€an€unpublished€CaliforniaÐ Ì&"% Ðtrial€court€opinion€provided€good€insight,€the€trial€court€reasoned€that€there€was€nothing€unlawfulÐ ¸'#& Ðabout€the€practice€of€dealer€reserve.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àFrom€this€ruling,€Beaudreau€appeals.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓII.Ð ° ÐÌÓ¤Óà  àAs€previously€stated,€the€trial€court€granted€Hill€Pontiacððs€motion€to€dismiss€BeaudreauððsÐ ˆØ Ðclaims.€€Hill€Pontiacððs€motion€was€premised€on€the€failure€of€the€complaint€to€state€a€claim€uponÐ tÄ Ðwhich€relief€can€be€granted.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6).€€ð ðSuch€a€motion€challenges€the€legalÐ `° Ðsufficiency€of€the€complaint.ðð€€ò òòòTrau„Med€of€Am.,€Inc.€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€71€S.W.3d€691,€696Ð L œ Ð(Tenn.€2002).€€Our€role€on€this€appeal€is€clear.€€We€ð ðmust€construe€the€complaint€liberally,€presum[e]Ð 8 ˆ Ðall€factual€allegations€to€be€true€and€giv[e]€the€plaintiff€the€benefit€of€all€reasonable€inferences.ðð€€ò òòòId.€Ð $ t Ðó óóóA€complaint€should€be€dismissed€only€if€ð ðit€appears€that€the€plaintiff€can€prove€no€set€of€facts€inÐ  ` Ðsupport€of€[its]€claim€that€would€entitle€[it]€to€relief.ðð€€ò òòòCook€v.€Spinnakerððs€of€Rivergate,€Inc.ó óóó,€878Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€934,€938€(Tenn.€1994).€€Our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€attachingÐ è 8  Ðto€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€ò òòòTrau„Medó óóó,€71€S.W.3d€at€696„97,€because€the€question€before€us€is€oneÐ Ô$  Ðof€law:€€Does€the€complaint€state€a€cause€of€action?Ð À  ÐÔ#†¼]»XX î #ÔÔ‡X X»¼]ÔÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓz#Óà  àThe€plaintiff€raises€four€issues€on€appeal,€which€can€be€succinctly€stated€as€follows:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€finding€that€Beaudreau€failed€to€state€aÐ H˜ Ðcause€of€action€under€the€TCPA?Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€finding€that€Beaudreau€failed€to€state€aÐ  \ Ðcause€of€action€for€civil€conspiracy?ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€finding€that€Beaudreau€failed€to€state€aÐ Ð  Ðcause€of€action€under€the€TTPA?м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à4.€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€finding€that€Beaudreau€failed€to€state€aÐ ”ä Ðcause€of€action€for€unjust€enrichment€and/or€money€had€and€received?Ô#†¼]»XX Z##ÔÔ‡X X»¼]ÔЀÐ` x` x ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ}'ÓÓ  ÓA.Ð 0"€  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àBeaudreau€first€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€failed€to€state€a€cause€ofÐ $X" Ðaction€under€the€TCPA.€€Specifically,€Beaudreau€claims€that€Hill€Pontiac€had€a€duty€to€disclose€theÐ ô$D # Ðð ðrealðð€interest€rate,€òòi.e.óó,€the€11.25%€rate,€to€him.€€We€disagree.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€TCPA€was€enacted,€in€part,€ð ð[t]o€protect€consumers€.€.€.€from€those€who€engage€in€unfairÐ ¸'#& Ðor€deceptive€acts€or€practices€in€the€conduct€of€any€trade€or€commerce€.€.€.€within€this€state.ðð€€Tenn.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€47„18„102(2)€(2001).€€Beaudreau€alleges€that€Hill€Pontiacððs€practice€of€ð ðsecretlyÐ )à$( Ðinflating€the€real€interest€rates€consumers€are€charged€when€financing€their€car€purchasesðð€is€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðdeceptive€practice€under€the€meaning€of€the€TCPA€and€is€thus€unlawful.€(Emphasis€in€originalÐ h+¸&* Ðomitted).€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„18„104(b)(27)€(Supp.€2003)€(stating€that€engaging€in€an€act€thatÐ ° Ðis€deceptive€to€the€consumer€is€unlawful).€€In€support€of€his€position,€Beaudreau€points€to€theÐ œì Ðfollowing€allegations€in€his€second€amended€complaint:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDuring€the€course€of€the€transaction,€[Beaudreau]€was€told€by€HillÐ `° ÐPontiac€representatives€that€financing€for€him€could€and€would€beÐ L œ Ðarranged€by€Hill€Pontiac€through€GMAC€ð ðat€the€lowest€rates€offeredððÐ 8 ˆ Ðby€GMAC.€€Financing€of€[Beaudreauððs]€vehicle€was€ultimatelyÐ $ t Ðprovided€by€GMAC.€€When€the€Hill€Pontiac€representative,€who€at€allÐ  ` Ðtimes€was€acting€as€[Beaudreauððs]€agent,€returned€with€what€heÐ ü L  Ðcharacterized€as€ð ðthe€best€rate€they€could€give€us,ðð€[Beaudreau]Ð è 8  Ðbelieved€he€had€negotiated€the€ð ðbest€rateðð€with€GMAC€on€his€behalf.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHowever,€Hill€Pontiac€secretly,€and€without€[Beaudreauððs]Ð ¬ü  Ðknowledge,€added€2.25€percentage€points€to€[Beaudreauððs]€realÐ ˜è  Ðinterest€rate€(consequently€arriving€at€the€13.50%€rate).€[Beaudreau]Ð „Ô  Ðwas€specifically€told€by€Hill€Pontiac€representatives,€including€theÐ pÀ Ðsalesman€and€finance€department€personnel,€that€Hill€Pontiac€hadÐ \¬ Ðdealt€with€GMAC€on€[Beaudreauððs]€behalf€and€that€the€13.50%€rateÐ H˜ Ðwas€the€best€rate€GMAC€could€offer.€€However,€Hill€Pontiac€knewÐ 4„ ÐGMAC€had€agreed€to€finance€[Beaudreauððs]€purchase€at€a€rate€lowerÐ  p Ðthan€13.50%,€which€would€have€consequently€led€to€lower€monthlyÐ  \ Ðpayments.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Beaudreau]€was€never€told€and€did€not€understand€that€Hill€PontiacÐ Ð  Ðwas€going€to€receive€any€of€the€13.5%€interest€rate€that€he€wasÐ ¼  Ðcharged.€€The€real€interest€rate€was€never€disclosed€to€[Beaudreau].€Ð ¨ø ÐSpecifically,€[Beaudreau]€also€did€not€know€that€the€interest€rate€atÐ ”ä Ðwhich€the€automobile€was€financed€ð!ð€and€which€he€paid€ð!ð€wasÐ €Ð Ðòòsecretlyóó€inflated€by€and€for€the€economic€benefit€of€Hill€Pontiac€byÐ l¼ Ðutilizing€the€dealer€reserve€scheme€described€herein.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àGMAC€arranges€for€its€automobile€dealers€to€act€as€intermediariesÐ 0"€  Ðbetween€the€consumer€and€GMAC€in€order€to€finance€the€sale€ofÐ #l! Ðautomobiles.€€This€arrangement€is€set€out€in€a€ð ðdealer€participationððÐ $X" Ðagreement€between€Hill€Pontiac€and€GMAC.€€According€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðagreement€between€GMAC€and€Hill€Pontiac,€the€dealership€isÐ à%0!$ Ðspecifically€authorized€by€GMAC€to€overcharge€consumers€byÐ Ì&"% Ðinflating€the€interest€rate€charged.€€Ð¸'#&` x` x ÐÌ(Numbering€in€original€omitted)€(emphasis€in€original).€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThis€is€an€issue€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.€€While€the€issue€of€dealer€reserve€wasÐ ° Ðâ âinvolved€in€the€case€of€ò òòòPyburn€v.€Bill€Heard€Chevroletó óóó,€63€S.W.3d€351€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001),€thatÐ œì Ðcase€centered€solely€on€the€issue€of€an€arbitration€agreement;€the€issue€of€whether€the€practice€ofÐ ˆØ Ðdealer€reserve€violated€the€TCPA€was€never€reached.€€Beaudreau€relies€upon€the€unreported€case€ofÐ tÄ Ðò òòòAdkinson€v.€Harpeth€Ford„Mercury,€Inc.ó óóó,€No.€01A01„9009„CH00332,€1991€WL€17177€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð `° ÐApp.€M.S.,€filed€February€15,€1991),€in€which€the€concept€of€dealer€reserve,€among€many€otherÐ L œ Ðissues,€was€involved.€€In€ò òòòAdkinsonó óóó,€the€court€made€the€following€finding€with€respect€to€dealerÐ 8 ˆ Ðreserve:òòò ò€óóó óÐ $ t ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe€are€also€of€the€opinion€that€òòunder€the€circumstancesóó€it€was€properÐ ü L  Ðfor€the€jury€to€base€a€finding€of€unfair€or€deceptive€acts€and€practicesÐ è 8  Ðon€the€evidence€at€trial€which€shows€that€Harpeth€kept€for€itself€2.5%Ð Ô$  Ðof€the€16.5%€annual€percentage€rate€financing€which€plaintiff€was€ledÐ À  Ðto€believe€was€charged€by€[Ford€Motor€Credit€Company]€to€financeÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€transaction.€€Harpeth€told€plaintiff€that€FMCC€was€financing€theÐ ˜è  Ðtransaction€but€failed€to€disclose€to€plaintiff€that€it€had€secretlyÐ „Ô  Ðimposed€the€2.5%€additional€charge.€ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó,€at€*7€(emphasis€added).€€Relying€upon€this€language,€Beaudreau€advances€the€position€that€theÐ H˜ ÐCourt€of€Appeals€has€ð ðspecifically€held€that€the€practice€[of€dealer€reserve]€.€.€.€violates€the€TCPA.ðð€Ð 4„ ÐHowever,€Beaudreau€overlooks€the€limiting€language€of€ð ðunder€the€circumstances.ðð€€In€ò òòòAdkinsonó óóó,Ð  p Ðthe€court€found€evidence€of€oral€misrepresentations€that€induced€the€plaintiff€into€signing€a€writtenÐ  \ Ðcontract,€as€well€as€evidence€that€the€dealership€ð ðused€high„pressure€tacticsðð€to€pressure€the€plaintiffÐ øH Ðinto€purchasing€a€car€when€she€simply€wanted€to€pay€off€her€lease€of€the€vehicle.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Based€uponÐ ä4 Ðthese€events,€the€court€went€on€to€find€that€ð ð[t]here€is€substantial€material€evidence€that€HarpethÐ Ð  Ðengaged€in€unfair€or€deceptive€acts€or€practices€under€the€[TCPA]€and€that€it€also€made€negligentÐ ¼  Ðmisrepresentations€to€plaintiff.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€court€did€state€that€the€jury€could€have€based€its€findingsÐ ¨ø Ðon€the€ð ðdeceptive€actðð€of€dealer€reserve€ð!ð€òòunder€the€circumstancesóó€of€the€case,€which€includedÐ ”ä Ðnumerous€acts€which€were€clearly€deceptive€under€the€TCPA.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€Indeed,€this€court€has€previouslyÐ €Ð Ðinterpreted€this€language€to€mean€that€ð ða€dealerððs€failure€to€disclose€ððdealer€reserveðð€was€actionableÐ l¼ Ðòòwhen€the€dealer€engaged€in€a€pattern€of€deceptive€conductóó.ðð€€ò òòòHarvey€v.€Ford€Motor€Credit€Co.ó óóó,€8Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.3d€273,€275€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(emphasis€added).€€By€contrast,€there€are€no€allegations€ofÐ D!” Ðsuch€deceptive€or€misleading€acts€in€the€instant€case€ð!ð€the€only€allegation€is€that€Hill€Pontiac€engagedÐ 0"€  Ðin€the€practice€of€dealer€reserve.€€We€find€that€the€facts€in€ò òòòAdkinson€ó óóóare€distinguishable€from€thoseÐ #l! Ðin€the€case€at€bar.€€ò òòòó óóóAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€ò òòòAdkinsonó óóó€does€not€have€precedential€value€in€theÐ $X" Ðinstant€case.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àBeaudreau€also€relies€upon€another€unreported€case,€ò òòòBaggett€v.€Crown€Auto.€Group,€Inc.ó óóó,Ð Ì&"% ÐNo.€01A01„9110„CV00401,€1992€WL€108710€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€M.S.,€filed€May€22,€1992),€to€supportÐ ¸'#& Ðhis€position€that€the€practice€of€dealer€reserve€is€unlawful.€€This€case€contains€evidence€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdealership€engaging€in€egregious€fraudulent€conduct,€which€included€the€dealership€makingÐ )à$( Ðalterations€to€the€original€sales€contract€without€the€plaintiffððs€knowledge.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€at€*7.€€When€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðplaintiff€signed€the€sales€contract€on€the€purchase€of€his€automobile,€he€agreed€to€an€annualÐ h+¸&* Ðpercentage€rate€of€14.75%.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€at€*3.€€However,€when€the€dealership€realized€that€Ford€Motor€CreditÐ ° ÐCompany€was€not€going€to€approve€the€financing€on€the€terms€agreed€upon€by€the€plaintiff€and€theÐ œì Ðdealership,€the€dealership€unilaterally€increased€the€annual€percentage€rate€to€15.3%€in€order€toÐ ˆØ Ðobtain€the€financing.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€at€*3„*5.€€The€dealership€then€induced€the€plaintiffððs€wife€to€sign€a€newÐ tÄ Ðcontract,€in€the€absence€of€the€plaintiff,€without€telling€her€of€the€changes€in€the€contract.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€at€*4„Ð `° Ð*5.€€This€court€held€that€increasing€the€interest€rate€without€informing€the€plaintiff€constituted€anÐ L œ Ðunfair€or€deceptive€act€as€contemplated€by€the€TCPA.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€at€*10.€€However,€the€actions€by€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdealership€in€increasing€the€rate€of€interest€in€the€ò òòòBaggettó óóó€case€do€not€constitute€the€practice€of€dealerÐ $ t Ðreserve€such€as€we€have€in€the€instant€case.€€Further,€as€in€ò òòòAdkinsonó óóó,€the€actions€of€the€dealershipÐ  ` Ðin€ò òòòBaggettó óóó€were€clearly€deceptive,€as€well€as€fraudulent.€€We€have€no€such€conduct€in€the€case€at€bar.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€only€other€instance€in€which€dealer€reserve€has€been€addressed€in€Tennessee€is€in€theÐ Ô$  Ðcase€of€ò òòòHarvey€v.€Ford€Motor€Credit€Co.ó óóó,€8€S.W.3d€273€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999),€in€which€we€heldÐ À  Ðthat€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€did€not€state€a€cause€of€action€against€Ford€Motor€Credit€Company€forÐ ¬ü  Ða€violation€of€the€TCPA,€based€upon€the€practice€of€dealer€reserve.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€276.€€Because€the€plaintiffÐ ˜è  Ðfiled€suit€against€the€automotive€financing€company€only€and€not€the€dealership€involved,€we€did€notÐ „Ô  Ðreach€the€issue€of€the€dealershipððs€liability,€if€any,€for€engaging€in€the€practice€of€dealer€reserve.€€ò òòòId.€Ð pÀ Ðó óóóHowever,€in€our€opinion€on€Harveyððs€petition€for€rehearing,€this€court€held€as€follows:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAlthough€the€Amended€Complaint€alleges€that€the€plaintiff€wasÐ 4„ Ðð ðrequired€to€pay€hidden€fees,ðð€he€was€clearly€informed€of€the€totalÐ  p Ðinterest€rate,€which€he€was€free€to€accept€or€reject.€€Regardless€of€howÐ  \ Ðpayment€was€allocated€between€the€dealer€and€defendant,€the€plaintiffÐ øH Ðwas€aware€of€what€his€overall€payment€and€total€interest€rate€wouldÐ ä4 Ðbe.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌò òòòHarvey€v.€Ford€Motor€Credit€Co.ó óóó,€No.€03A01„9807„CV„00235,€1999€WL€486894,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ¨ø ÐApp.€E.S.,€filed€July€13,€1999).€€The€court€went€on€to€point€out€that€the€plaintiff€was€ð ðfree€to€seekÐ ”ä Ðfinancing€from€other€sources.ðð€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóThere€is€no€allegation€in€the€instant€case€that€Hill€PontiacÐ €Ð Ðprevented€Beaudreau€from€considering€other€financing€options.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àBecause€there€is€no€case€that€is€squarely€on€point€in€Tennessee,€we€have€looked€to€the€caseÐ D!” Ðlaw€outside€of€our€jurisdiction€for€guidance.€€While€our€research€has€revealed€that€only€a€handful€ofÐ 0"€  Ðjurisdictions€have€addressed€the€legality€of€dealer€reserve,€the€cases€in€those€jurisdictions€are€indeedÐ #l! Ðinstructive.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Seventh€Circuit€addressed€the€issue€of€dealerÐ à%0!$ Ðreserve€in€the€context€of€the€plaintiffððs€allegation€that€the€dealership€was€acting€as€his€agent€whenÐ Ì&"% Ðit€arranged€the€financing:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[A]n€autombile€dealer€is€not€its€customersðð€agent,€obviously€not€inÐ )à$( Ðselling€cars€but€only€a€little€less€obviously€in€arranging€financing.€€IfÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€buyer€pays€cash€and€arranges€his€own€financing,€the€dealer€is€notÐ h+¸&* Ðin€the€picture€at€all.€€If€the€buyer€wants€to€buy€on€credit,€he€recognizesÐ ° Ðthat€his€decision€does€not€change€the€armsðð€length€nature€of€hisÐ œì Ðrelation€to€the€dealer.€€He€knows,€or€at€least€has€no€reason€to€doubt,Ð ˆØ Ðthat€the€dealer€seeks€a€profit€on€the€financing€as€well€as€on€theÐ tÄ Ðunderlying€sale.€€Ð`°` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€*€*Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓc\ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]here€is€no€suggestion€that€the€dealer€here€represented€that€heÐ  ` Ðwould€act€as€the€buyerððs€agent€in€dealing€with€the€finance€company,Ð ü L  Ðno€indication€therefore€that€an€agency€relationship€was€created.€€IfÐ è 8  Ðthere€were€such€a€relationship€it€would€mean€that€the€buyer€could€tellÐ Ô$  Ðthe€dealer€to€shop€the€retail€sales€contract€among€finance€companiesÐ À  Ðand€to€disclose€the€various€offers€the€dealer€obtained€to€him,€and€noÐ ¬ü  Ðone€dealing€with€an€automobile€dealer€expects€that€kind€of€service.Иè ` x` x ÐÌò òòòBalderos€v.€City€Chevroletó óóó,€214€F.3d€849,€853„54€(7th€Cir.€2000).€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€Alabama€Supreme€Court€adopted€similar€reasoning€when€it€addressed€the€issue€of€dealerÐ H˜ Ðreserve:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAlthough€this€case€specifically€involves€lenders€and€interest€rates,Ð  \ Ðinterest€is€nothing€other€than€the€cost€or€price€of€borrowing€money.€Ð øH ÐThe€[dealer€reserve]€agreement€at€issue€here€is€nothing€more€than€[theÐ ä4 Ðdealershipððs]€profit€on€the€loan€transaction,€which€had€a€wholesaleÐ Ð  Ðprice€and€a€retail€price.€€We€decline€to€recognize€a€common€law€dutyÐ ¼  Ðthat€would€require€the€seller€of€a€good€or€service,€absent€specialÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances,€to€reveal€to€its€purchaser€a€detailed€breakdown€of€howÐ ”ä Ðthe€seller€derived€the€sales€price€of€the€good€or€service,€including€theÐ €Ð Ðamount€of€profit€to€be€earned€on€the€sale.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌò òòòEx€parte€Ford€Motor€Credit€Co.ó óóó,€717€So.2d€781,€787€(Ala.€1997)€(internal€citation€omitted).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€California€Court€of€Appeal€has€made€the€following€statements€with€respect€to€theÐ #l! Ðlegality€of€dealer€reserve:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€[plaintiffs]€effectively€assert€that€payment€of€the€dealer€reserveÐ à%0!$ Ðis€deceptive€merely€because€it€is€not€disclosed€to€consumers.€Ð Ì&"% ÐHowever,€disclosure€is€not€required€by€law,€and€indeed€the€FederalÐ ¸'#& ÐReserve€Board€long€ago€rejected€the€proposition€that€such€disclosureÐ ¤(ô#'` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àwould€be€useful€to€consumers.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Moreover,€the€[plaintiffs]€allege€noÐ ° Ðfacts€suggesting€why€a€reasonable€person€would€believe€that€theÐ œì Ðfinancing€rate€in€his€or€her€contract€with€the€dealer€is€the€same€rate€atÐ ˆØ Ðwhich€a€lender€would€make€a€direct€loan.€€Indeed,€a€reasonable€personÐ tÄ Ðwould€likely€believe€the€opposite;€the€Federal€Reserve€Board€thoughtÐ `° Ðso,€and€several€courts€have€agreed.€.€.€.€€Accordingly,€we€concludeÐ L œ Ðpayment€of€the€dealer€reserve€as€alleged€in€the€complaints€does€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðconstitute€a€fraudulent€business€practice.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌÓ  Ó*€*€*Ð ü L  ÐÓbiÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€claim€that€consumers€pay€higher€interest€rates€than€they€would€ifÐ Ô$  Ðno€dealer€commission€existed€may€be€true,€but€that€is€scarcely€unfair.€Ð À  ÐDealers,€like€any€other€retailer,€seek€a€profit€on€the€credit€servicesÐ ¬ü  Ðthey€provide.€€We€are€compelled€to€agree€with€[the€defendant]€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðð ðunfairðð€prong€of€the€unfair€competition€law€was€not€intended€toÐ „Ô  Ðeliminate€retailersðð€profits€by€requiring€them€to€sell€at€their€cost,Ð pÀ Ðwhether€the€product€is€automobiles€or€automobile€financing.€€In€short,Ð \¬ Ðwe€discern€no€offense€to€public€policy,€and€no€unfairness€to€beÐ H˜ Ðweighed.€€Payment€of€the€dealer€reserve€is€not€an€unfair€practiceÐ 4„ Ðunder€the€unfair€competition€law.Ð p` x` x ÐÌò òòòKunert€v.€Mission€Fin.€Servs.€Corp.ó óóó,€1€Cal.€Rptr.€3d€589,€606„607€(Cal.€Ct.€App.€2003)€(internalÐ øH Ðcitations€omitted);€òòsee€also€ò òGeller€v.€Onyx€Acceptance€Corp.ó óóó,€No.€728614,€2001€WL€1711313,€atÐ ä4 Ð*2,€*6€(Cal.€Superior,€filed€November€13,€2001)€(noting€that€the€practice€of€dealer€reserve€has€been€Ð Ð  Ðð ðan€integral€part€of€the€indirect€auto€finance€market€since€at€least€the€1960'sðð€and€finding€that€dealerÐ ¼  Ðreserve€does€not€constitute€an€unfair€or€deceptive€business€practice).Ð ¨ø ÐÐ ”ä Ðà  àWe€find€the€approach€to€dealer€reserve€followed€by€these€other€jurisdictions€to€be€well„Ð ° Ðreasoned€and€adopt€it€as€our€own.€€Each€of€the€aforementioned€cases€holds,€in€essence,€that€aÐ œì Ðreasonable€consumer€should€be€aware€that€a€for„profit€retailer,€in€arranging€for€financing€for€aÐ ˆØ Ðconsumer,€would€expect€to€receive€some€sort€of€remuneration€for€its€efforts;€that€the€consumer€is€freeÐ tÄ Ðto€seek€financing€elsewhere€if€he€or€she€is€unhappy€with€the€terms€quoted€by€the€dealer;€that€theÐ `° Ðpractice€of€dealer€reserve€need€not€be€disclosed€to€the€consumer,€as€previously€found€by€the€FederalÐ L œ ÐReserve€Board;€and€that€the€practice€of€dealer€reserve€is€in€no€way€unlawful.€€It€appears€that€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€was€contemplating€a€similar€reasoning€in€ò òòòHarveyó óóó,€when€it€noted€that€the€plaintiff€was€ð ðfree€toÐ $ t Ðaccept€or€rejectðð€the€quoted€interest€rate€and€that€the€plaintiff€was€no€doubt€aware€of€the€totalÐ  ` Ðpayment€and€interest€rate.€€ò òòòHarveyó óóó,€1999€WL€486894,€at€*2.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€factual€predicate€in€the€complaint€before€us€which€gives€rise€to€a€legal€duty€onÐ Ô$  ÐHill€Pontiac€to€disclose€to€the€plaintiff€that€it€is€to€receive€a€portion€of€the€interest€charged€byÐ À  ÐGMAC.€€The€plaintiff€was€aware€that€his€contract€called€for€interest€at€the€rate€of€13.5%€per€annum.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThere€is€nothing€in€the€complaint€indicating€that€this€information€or€the€amount€of€his€monthlyÐ ˜è  Ðpayment€was€hidden€from€him.€€Regardless€of€whether€GMAC€was€to€receive€all€or€only€a€portionÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€stated€interest€of€13.5%,€the€fact€remains€that€the€plaintiff€knew€that€he€was€paying€13.5%Ð pÀ Ðinterest€to€borrow€the€money€to€finance€the€purchase€of€his€car.€€He€was,€at€all€times,€free€to€rejectÐ \¬ ÐGMAC€financing€and€look€elsewhere€for€a€loan€to€pay€for€his€vehicle.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€find,€in€the€instant€case,€that€Hill€Pontiacððs€dealer€participation€agreementÐ  p Ðwith€GMAC€does€not€constitute€a€deceptive€act€or€practice€and€that€Hill€Pontiac€had€no€duty€toÐ  \ Ðdisclose€the€existence€of€the€agreement€to€Beaudreau.€€We€conclude€that€the€practice€of€dealerÐ øH Ðreserve,€standing€alone,€does€not€violate€the€TCPA.Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ  ÓB.Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ€yÓà  àBeaudreau€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€had€not€stated€a€cause€ofÐ ”ä Ðaction€for€civil€conspiracy.€€A€civil€conspiracy€is€a€ð ðcombination€between€two€or€more€persons€toÐ €Ð Ðaccomplish€by€concert€an€unlawful€purpose,€or€to€accomplish€a€purpose€not€in€itself€unlawful€byÐ l¼ Ðunlawful€means.ðð€€ò òòòChenault€v.€Walkeró óóó,€36€S.W.3d€45,€52€(Tenn.€2001)€(quoting€ò òòòDale€v.€ThomasÐ X ¨ ÐH.€Temple€Co.ó óóó,€186€Tenn.€69,€208€S.W.2d€344,€353€(1948)).€€In€the€case€at€bar,€Beaudreau€allegesÐ D!” Ðthat€Hill€Pontiac€conspired€with€GMAC€to€ð ðpurposely€conceal€the€practice€by€which€Hill€Pontiac€isÐ 0"€  Ðpaid€a€ððkickbackðð€by€[GMAC€and€other€lenders].ðð€€Because€we€hold€that€the€practice€of€dealerÐ #l! Ðreserve€does€not€have€ð ðan€unlawful€purposeðð€or€constitute€the€accomplishment€of€a€lawful€purposeÐ $X" Ðð ðby€unlawful€meansðð€ð!ð€an€essential€element€of€a€civil€conspiracy€claim€ð!ð€we€find€this€issue€to€beÐ ô$D # Ðwithout€merit.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÓ  ÓC.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÓ5~Óà  àNext,€Beaudreau€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€failed€to€state€a€claimÐ )à$( Ðunder€the€TTPA.€€With€respect€to€this€issue,€Beaudreau€specifically€asserts€that€Hill€PontiacÐ |*Ì%) Ðconspired€with€lenders€ð ðto€lessen€competition€and/or€to€advance€the€costs€of€auto€financing.ðð€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€TTPA€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€followsÐ ° ÐòòóóÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAll€arrangements,€contracts,€agreements,€trusts,€or€combinationsÐ ˆØ Ðbetween€persons€or€corporations€made€with€a€view€to€lessen,€or€whichÐ tÄ Ðtend€to€lessen,€full€and€free€competition€in€the€importation€or€sale€ofÐ `° Ðòòarticlesóó€imported€into€this€state,€or€in€the€manufacture€or€sale€ofÐ L œ Ðòòarticlesóó€of€domestic€growth€or€of€domestic€raw€material,€and€allÐ 8 ˆ Ðarrangements,€contracts,€agreements,€trusts,€or€combinations€between€Ð $ t Ðpersons€or€corporations€designed,€or€which€tend,€to€advance,€reduce,Ð  ` Ðor€control€the€price€or€the€cost€to€the€producer€or€the€consumer€of€anyÐ ü L  Ðsuch€òòproduct€or€articleóó,€are€declared€to€be€against€public€policy,Ð è 8  Ðunlawful,€and€void.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„25„101€(2001)€Ô#†¼]»XX >'#ÔÔ‡X X»¼]Ô(emphasis€added).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àDespite€Beaudreauððs€attempts€to€argue€that€Hill€Pontiac€provided€a€product€when€it€arrangedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€financing€for€Beaudreauððs€automobile,€the€transaction€at€issue€clearly€involves€a€service.€€ThisÐ pÀ Ðcourt€has€previously€held€that€the€TTPA€is€not€applicable€to€workersðð€compensation€insuranceÐ \¬ Ðpremiums,€ð ðwhich€[are]€an€intangible€contract€right€or€serviceðð€rather€than€a€product€or€article.€€ò òòòJoÐ H˜ ÐAnn€Forman,€Inc.€v.€Natððlóóó ó€ò òòòCouncil€on€Comp.€Ins.,€Inc..ó óóó,€13€S.W.3d€365,€373€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 4„ Ð1999);€òòsee€also€ò òMcAdoo€Contractors,€Inc.€v.€Harrisó óóó,€439€S.W.2d€594,€597€(Tenn.€1969)€(holdingÐ  p Ðthat€the€TTPA€does€not€apply€to€the€award€of€a€building€construction€contract).€€Likewise,€theÐ  \ Ðarranging€of€financing€constitutes€a€service,€not€a€product.€€We€therefore€hold€that€the€TTPA€has€noÐ øH Ðapplicability€in€the€instant€case.€€Furthermore,€even€if€the€arranging€of€financing€was€deemed€to€fallÐ ä4 Ðunder€the€purview€of€the€TTPAòòóó€ð!ð€and€we€do€not€believe€that€it€does€ð!ð€we€find€that€the€practice€ofÐ Ð  Ðdealer€reserve€is€not€an€arrangement€made€to€lessen€ð ðfull€and€free€competition,ðð€as€contemplated€byÐ ¼  Ðthe€statute.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ  ÓD.Ô#†¼]»XX ÷ƒ#ÔÔ‡X X»¼]ÔÐ €Ð ÐÔ#†¼]»XX ò‰#ÔÓÁ‰ÓÔ‡X X»¼]ÔÌÔ#†¼]»XX YŠ#ÔÔ‡X X»¼]Ôà  àFinally,€Beaudreau€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€had€not€stated€a€causeÐ X ¨ Ðof€action€for€unjust€enrichment€and/or€money€had€or€received.€€We€disagree.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€recover€under€a€theory€of€unjust€enrichment,€the€plaintiff€must€prove€theÐ #l! Ðfollowing:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€benefit€conferred€upon€the€defendant€by€the€plaintiff,€appreciationÐ à%0!$ Ðby€the€defendant€of€such€benefit,€and€acceptance€of€such€benefit€underÐ Ì&"% Ðsuch€circumstances€that€it€would€be€inequitable€for€him€to€retain€theÐ ¸'#& Ðbenefit€without€payment€of€the€value€thereof.€Ð¤(ô#'` x` x ÐÌòòò òPaschallððs,€Inc.€v.€Dozieró óóó,€407€S.W.2d€150,€155€(Tenn.€1966).€Ô#†¼]»XX œŠ#ÔÔ‡X X»¼]Ô€While€the€first€two€prongs€of€thisÐ |*Ì%) Ðtest€have€been€satisfied,€Beaudreau€cannot€prove€that€it€would€be€inequitable€for€Hill€Pontiac€toÐ h+¸&* Ðretain€the€2.25%€dealer€reserve€commission.€€Indeed,€as€discussed€earlier€in€this€opinion,€a€consumerÐ ° Ðcannot€expect€a€dealership€to€assist€that€consumer€in€obtaining€financing€without€receiving€some€sortÐ œì Ðof€payment€for€its€services.€€Under€the€circumstances,€we€cannot€say€that€it€was€inequitable€for€HillÐ ˆØ ÐPontiac€to€retain€the€2.25%€dealer€reserve.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€claim€of€money€had€and€received,€such€an€action€ð ðmay€be€maintainedÐ L œ Ðwhere€one€receives€money€or€its€equivalent€under€such€circumstances€that€in€equity€and€goodÐ 8 ˆ Ðconscience€he€ought€not€to€retain€and€in€justice€and€fairness€it€belongs€to€another.ðð€€ò òòòSteelman€v.€FordÐ $ t ÐMotor€Credit€Co.ó óóó,€911€S.W.2d€720,€724€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)€(citing€ò òòòInterstate€Life€&€AccidentÐ  ` ÐCo.€v.€Cookó óóó,€86€S.W.2d€887,€891€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1935)).€€Again,€we€find€that€there€is€nothingÐ ü L  Ðinequitable€in€allowing€Hill€Pontiac€to€retain€the€dealer€reserve.€€Accordingly,€Beaudreauððs€claimsÐ è 8  Ðfor€unjust€enrichment€and€money€had€and€received€must€fail.Ð Ô$  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ#†¼]»XX Ž#ÔÔ‡X X»¼]ÔÐ ` x` x ÐÓ  ÓV.Ð ¬ü  ÐÓH”ÓÌà  àHill€Pontiac€raises€two€issues,€asserting€further€bases€for€upholding€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€Ð „Ô  ÐSpecifically,€Hill€Pontiac€asserts€that€(1)€the€transaction€in€question€was€in€full€compliance€with€theÐ pÀ ÐTruth€In€Lending€Act;€and€(2)€the€transaction€in€question€complied€with€the€statutes€governing€retailÐ \¬ Ðinstallment€sales€contracts€and€the€sale€of€commercial€paper.€€We€have€looked€at€these€matters€in€aÐ H˜ Ðcursory€fashion,€but€as€we€have€previously€found€that€the€issues€raised€by€Beaudreau€are€dispositiveÐ 4„ Ðof€this€appeal,€we€do€not€need€to€reach€Hill€Pontiacððs€issues.€€Accordingly,€we€will€not€address€them.Ð  p ÐÌÓ  ÓVI.Ð øH ÐÓh—ÓÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€circuit€court€for€Ð Ð  Ðcollection€of€costs€assessed€below,€pursuant€to€applicable€law.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÐ ¼  Ðappellant,€Patrick€Beaudreau.Ô#†¼]»XX ”#ÔÔ€X X»¼]ÔÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE