WPC*i oUhp_j"`Tf;,Eh`|Fr& %qH-QG<3 ƪ4Q5x# rŁkwޚz3CMJeFs6ºQX ɽz#SJά@r#?* }G@:يIr@osZ1ͣA/I&{…+ۗ~eƄJW='7辅# 4U*N{5T~K@H:wO@AOyrӊ6 Y2r$<۽% lS%r\rU Q9ä$X_7lkbpHU]BurqWU5;j%;\ne@:&hbIAe!ouq]9eXy'z)MB"3N]lwDjn{l\2f]h8Ja OT+/`U*G! o %^  0$U Nw4 z!  m mo  0 D4x>N E #"" 0U! 0@" 0## 0# 0$ 0`% 0& 0& 0g' 0( 0( 0) 0Q* 0* 0+ 0F, 0, 0v- 0. 0. 0/bC0 0K0 00 01 072 02 0a3 03 04 0[5 0>6 0W6 0O7 018 09 09 0: 0; 0s< 02E= 0w= 0:s> 0Y> 0_? 0 e? 0o@ 0A B*C D/!D 0PD D/VF 0F 06SG 0G 0:H 0^H 0 )I 0<J 1ePJU6J BJU>K 0FK D5K D-L 0KLLU*L ASLM 0M 0D~N AN 1umO 72O 0cPwPc|RSZow^_Ubd2dHd~[1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJE1:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt U  R$      3    _The HomeWarrantyreferencedinthisprovisionisexpoundeduponbyanotherprovisionoftheAgreement,  whichreadsasfollows: t   8 ` LIMITEDWARRANTY:SELLERAGREESTOPROVIDEBUYERA10YEAR L LIMITEDWARRANTY(THE HOMEWARRANTY).ACOPYOFTHE  HOMEWARRANTYISAVAILABLEATTHESALESOFFICE.EXCEPTAS  EXPRESSLYSETFORTHINTHEHOMEWARRANTY,SELLERSHALL H  HAVENOLIABILITYOROBLIGATIONWHATSOEVERAFTER  \ SETTLEMENTWITHRESPECTTOTHEPREMISESORTHISAGREEMENT.   SELLERSLIABILITYUNDERTHEHOMEWARRANTYORTHIS    AGREEMENTORARISINGINANYWAYOUTOFTHECONSTRUCTION, X   DELIVERY,SALEORCONDITIONOFTHEPREMISESSHALLBELIMITED  l  TOTHEREPAIROFTHEPREMISESINACCORDANCEWITHTHEHOME  0  WARRANTYSTANDARDS.INNOEVENTSHALLSELLERBELIABLE   FORANYSPECIAL,EXEMPLARY,INDIRECTORCONSEQUENTIAL h  DAMAGES.SELLERHEREBYSPECIFICALLYEXCLUDESANYOTHER ,|  WARRANTIES,EXPRESSORIMPLIED,INCLUDINGWITHOUT @  LIMITATION,IMPLIEDWARRANTIESOFMERCHANTABILITY,   HABITABILITY,WORKMANSHIPANDFITNESSFORAPARTICULAR x  PURPOSE.<` x` x (Capitalizationinoriginal).However,acopyofthe HomeWarrantyisnotcontainedintherecordbeforeus.(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  | R$      8    _ԀIntheirbrief,theGuffyscontendthatevenifthecontracts _evidenc[e_]atransactioninvolvingcommerce,  theFAAisnotnecessarilyimplicated.The_Guffys_Ԁarguethatacontractmayimplicatetheinterstatecommerce t requirementyetbenonarbitrable.The_Guffys_Ԁarguethattheirpositionissupportedbythelanguageof9U.S.C.2! 8 thatanagreement shallbevalid,irrevocable,andenforceablesaveuponsuchgroundsasexistatlaworinequityfor L therevocationofanycontract!whenreadinconjunctionwiththeSupremeCourtslanguagein AlliedBruce that   [_s]tates_Ԁmayregulatecontracts,includingarbitrationclauses,undergeneralcontractlawprinciplesandtheymay  invalidateanarbitrationclauseuponsuchgroundsasexistatlaworinequityfortherevocationofanycontract. J   AlliedBruce ,513U.S.at281.The_Guffys_Ԁthereforeseemtosuggestthatthiscasepresentsasituationwhereastate  ^ courtmaydeclinetoapplytheFAAonstatelawgrounds.However,thatargumentisunavailingwhenthecitedlanguage  $ from AlliedBruce isreadincontext.Thefollowingsentencein AlliedBruce limitstheabilityofstatestoregulate    agreementstoarbitrate: ^     8 ` WhatStatesmaynotdoisdecidethatacontractisfairenoughtoenforceallits  6  basicterms...butnotfairenoughtoenforceitsarbitrationclause.The[FAA]   makesanysuchstatepolicyunlawful,forthatkindofpolicywouldplacearbitration n  clausesonanunequal footing,directlycontrarytothe[FAA]slanguageand 2  Congressintent.F ` x` x  Id. (citing VoltInfo.Sciences,Inc., 489U.S.at474.Thislanguagecontemplatesthatstatestatutes,suchastheone ~  relieduponbythe_Guffys_Ԁtoinvalidatethearbitrationprovision,cannotbeusedtoinvalidatesuchprovisionsunlessthose D lawsareequallyimposedoncontractsingeneral.\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  - -(55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7J(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dI)1dxd<:zTop of For7L(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  I)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      (|G2$ !.8dd8         0  2 0CommentB  "#$%&'() 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New d\  `&Times New Roman(|3.$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %2A`Arial^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3.$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)bi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    R$      9    _TollBrothersrespondedbyarguingthat,sincethesignaturesaffixedtotheHomeBuyerAcknowledgment  itselfareimmediatelybelowtheparagraphcontainingthearbitrationprovision,thissatisfiedtherequirementsofthe t _TUAA_.However,thetrialcourtfoundthisargumenttobewithoutmerit,andsodowe. Y R$      5    _TheGuffysweretheonlycoupletoenterintoasettlementagreementwithTollBrothers.Consequently,they  weretheonlypartytoallegefraudulentinducementtoenterintothisseparateagreement.  R$      2    _ThreeothercouplesbroughtsimilarlawsuitsagainstTollBrothersbaseduponthesamecontractdocuments.  Thesesuitswereconsolidatedbytwoofthiscourtsorders,i.e.,theorderofOctober7,2003,whichconsolidatedthe t matterof _Guffy_Ԁetal.vTollBrothersRealEstate,Inc.,etal. withthatof _Primm_,etal.v.TollBrothersRealEstate, 8 Inc.,et.al ,C/ANo.M200301812_COA_ԄR3CV,andtheorderofNovember13,2003,whichconsolidatedthe_Guffy_ N matterwiththatof Michael_Felks_,etal.andGlenFine,etal.v.TollsBrothersRealEstate,Inc.,etal. ,C/ANo.  M200302496_COA_ԄR3CV.Theconsolidatedcasesproceededunderthenumberassignedtothe_Guffy_Ԁlitigationbythe  appellatecourtclerk.Sinceallfourlawsuitsbeforeushavecommoncontractdocumentsandcommonissuesoflaw, N  wewillrefertotheplaintiffscollectivelyas the_Guffys_.Thedifferencesinthecasesarenotrelevanttotheissues  b beforeus,andconsequentlywewilllimitourbackgrounddiscussiontothatofthe_Guffy_Ԁmatter.However,ourholdings  & withrespecttothe_Guffys_Ԁapplywithequalforcetoallfourcases.  R$      6    _Tenn.CodeAnn.295302(a)providesasfollows:    8 ` Awrittenagreementtosubmitanyexistingcontroversytoarbitrationoraprovision 8 inawrittencontracttosubmittoarbitrationanycontroversythereafterarising L betweenthepartiesisvalid,enforceableandirrevocablesaveuponsuchgrounds  asexistatlaworinequityfortherevocationofanycontract;provided,thatfor  contractsrelatingtofarmproperty,structuresorgoods,ortopropertyandstructures H  utilizedasaresidenceofaparty,theclauseprovidingforarbitrationshallbe  \ additionallysignedorinitialedbytheparties. e R$      4    _Weassume,butdonotknowforsure,thatthe TollBrothersLimitedWarrantyisthesameasthe Home  Warranty.Inviewofourdispositionofthisappeal,wedonothavetoresolvethisquestion.  R$      10    _Initsmemoranduminsupportofitsmotiontocompelarbitration,TollBrothersarguedthatinsigningthe  HomeBuyerAcknowledgment,thepartiesagreedtobeboundbytheFAA.However,inargument,TollBrothersrelied t primarilyupontheirassertionthatthesignatureontheHomeBuyerAcknowledgmentsatisfiestheadditionalsigning 8 requirement,andthatthedecisionof PrimaPaint requiredthatthe_Guffys_claimoffraudulentinducementbesubmitted L forarbitration. K R$      1    _Asfarastheissuesbeforeusareconcerned,therelationshipbetweenthesetwoentitiesisimmaterial.Suffice  ittosaythatourholdingspertainwithequalforcetobothentities.      R$      7    _TheGuffyscontendintheirbriefthatthereasoningof PrimaPaint wasoverruledbytheSupremeCourts  subsequentdecisionin FirstOptionsofChicago,Inc.v.Kaplan ,514U.S.938,115_S.Ct_.1920,131_L.Ed_.2d985 v (1995).However, FirstOptions neitherexpresslynorimpliedlyoverrulesorevenaddressestheSupremeCourts < decisionin PrimaPaint .Rather,the FirstOptions opiniononlyaddressesthequestionofwhetherarbitratorsorcourts R havethepowertodetermineifpartiesagreedtoarbitratethemeritsofadispute.TheSupremeCourtin FirstOptions   simplyheldthattheresolutionofthisissuedependsuponthepartiesagreementastowhowouldarbitratetheissueof  _arbitrability_. Id. 514U.S.at94344.Theissueaddressedin FirstOptions issimplynotbeforeus. !.8dd8     _  8AXXdd8  lOYmOY@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#.#Ԉ &   July8,2004Session L XAX #XXA#MICHAEL_GUFFY_,etal.v.TOLLBROTHERS J REALESTATE,INC.,etal.XAX   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCounty  ^ @@Nos.29063,28956,29541R.E.LeeDavis,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200301810_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober27,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A      TollBrothersRealEstate,Inc.,andWilsonConcord,L.P.,(collectively TollBrothers),k  #  1      ׀seek  reviewofthetrialcourt'sorderdenyingTollBrothersmotiontocompelarbitration.Michael_Guffy_ x andhiswife,Rosemary_Guffy_,alongwithother_g  #  2      _Ԁplaintiffs(allplaintiffsbeinghereincollectively d referredtoas the_Guffys_),filedseparatecomplaintsagainstTollBrothersalleging,amongother P causesofaction,thattheywerefraudulentlyinducedtoenterintoanAgreementofSale( the < Agreement)withTollBrothersfortheconstructionandpurchaseofaresidence.Aprovisioninthe (x Agreementprovidesthatdisputesbetweenthepartieswouldbesubmittedtoarbitration.Basedupon d thisprovision,TollBrothersmovedtostaythecourtproceedingsandtocompelarbitration.Thetrial P courtdeniedTollBrothersmotion,findingthatthearbitrationprovisiondidnotapplytothe_Guffys_ < claimoffraudulentinducementtoenterintothecontract.Thetrialcourtalsoheldthatthearbitration ( provisionwasinvalidbecauseitwasnotinitialedoradditionallysignedasrequiredbytheTennessee  UniformArbitrationAct( the_TUAA_).ArguingthattheFederalArbitrationAct( theFAA)  governsthepartiesarbitrationagreement,TollBrothersappeals.#XXA#XAXԀWevacatethetrialcourtsorder  denyingarbitrationandremandforfurtherproceedings.  . Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt `!  Vacated;CaseRemanded  L"! _ԇ  #XA #XAX.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,P.J.,  andD.MichaelSwiney,J.,joined.  C.DeweesBerry,IVandKristinJ.Hazelwood,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,Toll t BrothersRealEstate,Inc.,andWilsonConcord,L.P. ` JeanDyerHarrison,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,MichaelGuffyandwife,Rosemary 8  Guffy;JosephPrimmandwife,JacquelinePrimm;MichaelFelksandwife,JenniferFelks;andGlen $ t Fineandwife,TheresaFine.  ` 4 OPINION #XXAc#XAX  8  I.   #XXAT#  XAX  In1998,theGuffysenteredintotheAgreementfortheconstructionandpurchaseofa   residenceinTollBrothersBrentwoodGlenncommunityinWilliamsonCounty.TheAgreement   containsanarbitrationprovision,whichreadsasfollows: p   8 ` Buyerherebyagreesthatanyandalldisputesarisingoutof[the H Agreement],theHomeWarranty   #  3      ׀ortheconstructionorconditionof 4 thePremisesshallberesolvedbybindingarbitrationinaccordance  p withtherulesandproceduresoftheAmericanArbitration  \ Associationoritssuccessor(oranequivalentorganizationselected H bySeller).Inaddition,BuyeragreesthatBuyermaynotinitiateany  arbitrationproceedingforanyclaimarisingoutoftheAgreementor  theHomeWarrantyorrelatingtotheconstructionorconditionofthe  PremisesunlessanduntilBuyerhasfirstgivenSellerspecificwritten t notice...andgivenSellerareasonableopportunityaftersuchnotice ` tocureanydefault,includingtherepairofthePremises,in L  accordancewiththeHomeWarranty.Theprovisionsofthis 8  paragraphshallsurvivesettlement.$ t` x` x Atclosing,theGuffyssigneda registrationform( theHomeBuyerAcknowledgment)inwhich  L  theGuffysacknowledgedreceiptoftheTollBrothersLimitedWarranty.i  #  4      ׀TheHomeBuyer  8  Acknowledgmentalsocontainsanarbitrationprovision,whichprovides,inrelevantpart,asfollows: $    8 ` I/weacknowledgeandagreealldisputesunderandrelatingtothe   LimitedWarranty(includingdisputesonwhichissuesaretobe   submittedtoarbitration;allegedbreachoftheLimitedWarranty;and   allegedviolationsofstatutesorregulationsrelatingtoconsumer p protectionorunfairtradepractices)shallbesubmittedtobinding \ arbitrationbeforeanindependentthirdpartyarbitrationorganization. H I/weagreethedecisionofthearbitrator(s)shallbebindingonall 4 parties.Anysuchbindingarbitration(s)shallbeconductedin  p accordancewiththerulesandproceduresapplicabletothearbitration  \ organizationhearingthedisputeor,wherethoserulesaresilent,the H UnitedStatesArbitrationAct(9U.S.C.et.seq.).4` x` x TheGuffystookpossessionoftheirresidenceonoraboutAugust28,1998.Subsequently,the   Guffysclaimedthattherewereconstructiondefectsanddeficienciesinthestructure,citing  significantstructuraldefectsandwaterintrusionthathadcausedmoldgrowththroughoutthehouse.  Ѐ    TheGuffysfiledsuitagainstTollBrothersonAugust27,2002,seekingrescissionofthe X  AgreementonthegroundthattheywerefraudulentlyinducedtoenterintotheAgreementbyvirtue D! ofTollBrothersmisrepresentationsastothequalityofconstructionofthehome.Theircomplaint 0"  alsoallegedbreachesofcontract,violationsoftheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,negligence, #l! fraud,andnegligentorfraudulent/intentionalmisrepresentation.f  #  5      ׀ $X"   BasedonthearbitrationprovisionscontainedintheAgreementandtheHomeBuyer %0!$ Acknowledgment,TollBrothersmovedtostaytheproceedingsandsoughtanordercompelling &"% lOY l l  arbitration.TheGuffysfiledamotiontoquashthedemandforarbitrationbasedonthefactthatthe  arbitrationprovisionwasnotinitialedoradditionallysignedasrequiredbyaprovisionoftheTUAA,  codifiedinTenn.CodeAnn.295302(a)(2000).h  #  6      ׀Additionally,theGuffysarguedthatthe  allegationsintheircomplaintbearingupontheissueofcontractformationarenotappropriatefor t arbitrationunderTennesseelaw;rather,theyassertthatclaimsoffraudulentinducementtocontract ` mustbesubmittedforjudicialresolution.Followingargument,thetrialcourtenteredanorder L  grantingtheGuffysmotiontoquashthedemandforarbitration,anddenyingTollBrothersmotion 8  tocompelarbitration.OnJune12,2003,TollBrothersfileda MotiontoReviseNonFinal $ t JudgmentunderRule54.02or,intheAlternative,toAlterorAmendUnderRule59.04theJudgment  ` Entered.ThetrialcourtdeniedthismotionwithoutahearingonJune16,2003.TollBrothers  L  appeals.  8  @)II.     Theissuebeforeusisoneoflaw.Therefore,ourreviewisdenovoontherecordofthe   proceedingsbelowandthereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsconclusionsof   law. T.R.MillsContractors,Inc.v.WRHEnter.,LLC ,93S.W.3d861,864(Tenn.Ct.App.2002). p ThegeneralissuepresentedhereiswhetherthetrialcourterredindenyingTollBrothersmotion \ tocompelarbitration.Althoughanappealasofrighttypicallymustaddressafinaljudgmentofa H trialcourt,seeTenn.R.App.P.3(a),thisappealisbeforeusasofrightundertheTUAA,which 4 providesthatanappealmaybetakenfromanorderdenyinganapplicationtocompelarbitration.  p Tenn.CodeAnn.295319(a)(1)(2000). SeealsoT.R.Mills ,93S.W.3dat86465.  \   Intheinstantcase,theproprietyofthetrialcourtsdecisionhingesuponwhethertheFAA 4 governsthepartiesagreementtoarbitrate,therebypreemptingTennesseelaworwhethertheTUAA   applies.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasdeterminedthatwheretheFAAapplies,claimsof   fraudulentinducementtocontractmustproceedtoarbitration;undertheFAA,onlyclaimsof  fraudulentinducementtoenterintothearbitrationprovisionmustbesubmittedforjudicial  resolution. PrimaPaintCorp.v.Flood&ConklinMfg.Co. ,388U.S.395,4034,87S.Ct.1801,   18L.Ed.2d1270(1967).n  #  7      ׀However,Tennesseecourtshaveadoptedthedissentin PrimaPaint and  heldthatallegationsoffraudulentinducementtoenterintothecontractasawholearenot  appropriateforarbitration. CityofBlainev.JohnColemanHayes&Assoc.,Inc. ,818S.W.2d33,  38(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Therefore,whereTennesseelawgoverns,apartyseekingrescissionof t acontractbasedonfraudulentinducementtocontractisentitledtojudicialresolutionofthatclaim. `  FrizzellConstructionCo.v.Gatlinburg,L.L.C. ,9S.W.3d79,85(Tenn.1999).   L    ThetrialcourtdidnotstatewithspecificitywhetheritbelievedthattheFAAortheTUAA $ t governsthepartiesundertakings.ThetrialcourtappearstohaveconcurredintheGuffysargument  ` thatthearbitrationclausedidnotcontemplatethearbitrationofaclaimoffraudulentinducement  L  tocontract,andthatthearbitrationprovisiondoesnotsatisfytheprescriptionsoftheTUAAinthat  8  itisnotseparatelyinitialedorsigned.TollBrotherscontendsthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdenied $  itsmotiontocompelarbitrationbecausetheprovisionsatissuearegovernedbytheFAA.Therefore,   accordingtoTollBrothers,sincetheFAArequiresthatclaimsoffraudulentinducementtocontract   besubmittedtoarbitration,andsincetheFAA,ifapplicable,wouldpreempttheprovisionofthe   TUAAcallingforanarbitrationprovisiontobeadditionallysignedorinitialed,thedisputebetween   theparties,againaccordingtoTollBrothers,shouldbesubmittedtoarbitration. p ̀  Giventhecomplexitiesofthesearbitrationactsandthenecessityofdeterminingwhich H applies,wemustfirstexplore,asrelevant,theinterplaybetweentheFAAandtheTUAA. 4 @vv(III.  \   Section2oftheFAAprovidesthat 4   8 ` [a]writtenprovisioninanymaritimetransactionoracontract   evidencingatransactioninvolvingcommercetosettlebyarbitration  acontroversythereafterarisingoutofsuchcontractortransaction,or  therefusaltoperformthewholeoranypartthereof,oranagreement  inwritingtosubmittoarbitrationanexistingcontroversyarisingout l ofsuchacontract,transaction,orrefusal,shallbevalid,irrevocable, X  andenforceable,saveuponsuchgroundsasexistatlaworinequity D! fortherevocationofanycontract.0" ` x` x 9U.S.C.2(1999)(emphasisadded).Thephrase involvingcommercehasbeeninterpretedas $X" beingthefunctionalequivalentof affectingcommerce,which,inturn,isthelanguagetypically $D # employedbyCongresstoinvokeitsconstitutionalpowertoregulateinterstatecommerce. Frizzell ,  9S.W.3dat82(emphasisadded).Thus,asusedin9U.S.C.2,theword commercerefersto   interstatecommerce.    AcourtmayfindthattheFAAgovernseither(1)wherethepartiesconsentedinthe ` agreementthattheFAAwouldapply,  or(2)wherethecourtdeterminesthatthecontract involv[es] L  [interstate]commerce  .OnceacourtdeterminesthattheFAAapplies,itmustproceedunderthe 8  rubricofthefederalact.However,underTennesseelaw,ifthepartiesexpresslyagreethattheir $ t contractwillbegovernedbyTennesseelaw,thepartiesagreementcontrolsevenintheeventthe  ` contract evidenc[es]atransactioninvolvingcommerce.Ithasbeenheldthat, [s]inceCongress  L  didnotwantstateandfederalcourtstoreachdifferentoutcomesaboutthevalidityofarbitration,the  8  FAA,ifitapplies,preemptsstatelawandstatecourtscannotapplystatestatutesthatinvalidate $  arbitrationagreements. Pyburnv.BillHeardChevrolet ,63S.W.3d351,357(Tenn.Ct.App.   2001).     @)A.     As arbitrationisamatterofcontract,acourtmustapplyordinarycontractprinciplesto \ determinewhetherthecontractingpartiesagreedtosubmitcertainclaimstoarbitration,andwhether H theyagreedastothelawthatwouldgovernthearbitrationprocess. Frizzell ,9S.W.3dat84.Asthe 4 UnitedStatesSupremeCourthasstated,  p   8 ` [a]rbitrationunderthe[FAA]isamatterofconsent,notcoercion,and H partiesaregenerallyfreetostructuretheirarbitrationagreementsas 4 theyseefit.Justastheymaylimitbycontracttheissueswhichthey   willarbitrate,sotoomaytheyspecifybycontracttherulesunder   whichthatarbitrationwillbeconducted.` x` x  Id. (quoting VoltInfo.Sciences,Inc.v.Bd.ofTrustees ,489U.S.468,479,109S.Ct.1248,103  L.Ed.2d488(1989)).Thequestionthereforebecomes whatthecontracthastosayaboutthe l arbitrabilityofthepetitionersclaim.... Pyburn ,63S.W.3dat357  (quoting Mastrobuonov. X  ShearsonLehmanHutton,Inc. ,514U.S.52,58,115S.Ct.1212,131L.Ed.2d76(1995)).  Ifthe D! partiesagreedtoarbitrateundertheFAA,aclaimmustbesubmittedtoarbitrationevenifthatclaim 0"  wouldnotbesubjecttoarbitrationunderTennesseelaw. Id. For,asonecourtheld, #l!   8 ` [a]samatteroffederallaw,anydoubtsconcerningthescopeof $D # arbitrableissuesshouldberesolvedinfavorofarbitration...Tothat %0!$ end, theheavypresumptionofarbitrabilityrequiresthatwhenthe &"% scopeofthearbitrationclauseisopentoquestion,acourtmustdecide '#& thequestioninfavorofarbitration.(#'` x` x  Id. (quoting Am.RecoveryCorp.v.ComputerizedThermalImaging,Inc. ,96F.3d88,92(4thCir. |*%) 1996)(citationsomitted)). h+&* mOY m m     Therefore,togaugewhetherpartiesintendedfortheFAAtoapply,thecourtsmustrelyupon  the cardinalruleininterpretingcontracts,whichis toascertaintheintentionofthepartiesandto  giveeffecttothatintention,consistentwithlegalprinciples. Frizzell ,9S.W.3dat85  (quoting Bob t PearsallMotors,Inc.v.RegalChryslerPlymouth,Inc. ,521S.W.2d578,580(Tenn.1975)).The ` intentionofthepartiesshouldbegaugedbyconsideringthetermsofthecontract,itssubjectmatter, L  andthe constructionplacedontheagreementbythepartiesincarryingoutitsterms. Id. (quoting 8   PenskeTruckLeasingCo.v.Huddleston ,795S.W.2d669,671(Tenn.1990)).Thecourtin $ t  Frizzell appliedsuchananalysistoconcludethatalthoughtherelevantarbitrationprovision  ` extendedto [a]llclaims,disputesand[sic]orothermattersinquestionarisingoutof,orrelating  L  to,thisAgreement,theinclusionofaTennesseechoiceoflawclausedemonstratedtheparties  8  intentiontowithholdfromarbitrationaclaimoffraudulentinducementtocontract,and,instead,to $  submitthisissuetoacourt,ascontemplatedbyTennesseelaw. Id. 9S.W.3dat81,85.      `     h   Intheinstantcase,therelevantlanguageintheHomeBuyerAcknowledgmentprovidesthat    alldisputesunderandrelatingtotheLimitedWarranty...shallbesubmittedtobindingarbitration,   and [a]nysuchbindingarbitration(s)shallbeconductedinaccordancewiththerulesandprocedures p applicabletothearbitrationorganizationhearingthedisputeor,wherethoserulesaresilent,the \ [FAA].(Emphasisadded).TherecordbeforeusincludestheAgreementandtheHomeBuyer H Acknowledgment,but,significantly,itdoesnotincludetheHomeWarranty,adocumentreferred 4 tointheAgreementandapparentlyalsoreferredtointheHomeBuyerAcknowledgment.Thus,  p thereareatleastthreecontractdocumentspertainingtotheconstructionandpurchaseoftheGuffys  \ residence.Sincewedonothaveoneofthesedocumentsandsinceallcontractdocumentsneedto H beconsideredindeterminingwhetherthepartiesexpresslyagreedthattheFAAwouldapplytotheir 4 arbitrationprovision,see T.R.Mills ,93S.W.3dat870(citing McCallv.TowneSquare,Inc .,503   S.W.2d180,183(Tenn.1973)),wemustdefer,initially,tothetrialcourtforaresolutionoftheissue   ofwhetherornotthepartieshaveexpresslyagreedtosubmittoarbitrationundertheFAA.A  remandtothetrialcourtisrequiredforthisdetermination.    IfitisdeterminedthatthepartieshaveconsentedtobegovernedbytheFAA,theallegation l offraudulentinducementtoenterintothewholecontractmustbesubmittedtoarbitration,asthe X  TennesseeSupremeCourthasrecentlyheld, D!   8 ` [p]artiesmayagreetoarbitrateclaimsoffraudulentinducement #l! despiteprohibitionofarbitrationofsuchclaimsunderTennesseelaw, $X" andbecausetheparties...specificallyagreedthattheFAAgovernsthe $D # arbitrationclause,theyagreedtoarbitratetheclaimforfraudulent %0!$ inducementofthecontract.&"%` x` x  Taylorv.Butler ,No.W200201275SCR11CV,2004WL1925423,at*1(Tenn.filedAugust31, (#' 2004).Onlyclaimsspecificallychallengingthearbitrationclauseitself,ongroundsoffraudor )$( unconscionability,areappropriateforjudicialresolutionundertheFAA. Id., at*4.Therefore, |*%) shouldatrialcourtdeterminethattheFAAgovernsbyvirtueofthepartiesagreement,theissueof h+&* fraudulentinducementtocontractgoestoarbitration,andtheinitialing/signingrequirementunder  theTUAAispreemptedbecauseitdoesnotapplytoallcontracts,butsimplytoagreementsto  arbitrate.See AlliedBruceTerminixCos.v.Dobson ,513U.S.265,281,115S.Ct.834,130  L.Ed.2d753(1995). t @)B. L    If,basedonalloftherelevantcontractdocuments,thetrialcourtdeterminesthattheparties $ t didnotexpresslyagreethattheFAAwouldgoverntheirarbitrationagreement,thecourtmustthen  ` gofurtheranddeterminewhethertheFAAappliesbecausethe contractevidenc[es]atransaction  L  involvingcommerce,therebybringingitwithintheambitoftheFAA,sinceitisclearthatthe  8  partiesdidnotexpresslyagreethatTennesseelawwouldapply.Whereanagreementissilentasto $  thechoiceoflaw,butprovidesthatclaimsarisingoutofthecontractwillbesubmittedtoarbitration,   theFAAwillcontrolifthecontractinvolvesinterstatecommerce. AlliedBruce ,513U.S.at274,   278.Itisnotnecessarythatthepartiescontemplatedthatthecontractwouldinvolveinterstate   commerce;rathertheFAAmerelyrequiresthatacontractaffectinterstatecommerceandthatthere   wasinterstatecommerceinfact. Id. (emphasisadded).Consequently,in AlliedBruce ,theUnited p StatesSupremeCourtreversedanAlabamaSupremeCourtdecisiontoapplyAlabamasarbitration \ scheme,whichinvalidatedwritten,predisputearbitrationagreements. Id. at269.TheAlabama H courtheldthattheFAAdidnotapplybecausethepartiesdidnotcontemplateinterstatecommerce 4 uponenteringintotheagreement. Id. at274,278.However,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt  p articulatedanewtestthatredefinedthescopeof involvingcommerceand evidencinga  \ transaction. Id. Consequently,themultistatenatureofthecompanyandthefactthatmaterialsused H bythecompanytocarryoutthetermsofthecontractcamefromoutsideofthestatesufficedtobring 4 thecontractwithintheambitoftheFAA. Id. at282.     Therefore,asinterstatecommerceneedonlybe presentinfact,Tennesseecourtshave  foundinterstatecommercebyconsideringfactorssuchasthelocationoftherespectiveparties,the  involvementofoutofstatecontractorsandlaborers,thelocationsfromwherematerialswere  purchased,andthesourceoffinancing.See Frizzell ,9S.W.3dat83; Tenn.RiverPulp&Paper l Co.v.EichleayCorp. ,637S.W.2d853,855(Tenn.1982). X    TollBrothersconditionsitsappealontheargumentthattheAgreementevidencesinterstate 0"  commerce.Insupportofitsargument,TollBrothersattachedanaffidavitfromTollBrothers #l! corporatecounselenumeratingthewaysinwhichinterstatecommercewasinvolvedinthesematters. $X" However,whethertheallegationsofinterstateactivityaretrue,and,iftrue,whethertheysufficeto $D # bringthismatterwithintheambitoftheFAA,arequestionsforthetrialcourtonremand.Thetrial %0!$ courtmustdecidewhetherthecontractandthemannerinwhichitwasperformedinvolvedinterstate &"% commerce.Shouldthecourtdeterminethattheundertakingsbetweentheparties evidenc[e]a '#&  transactioninvolvingcommerce,theFAAappliesand,consequently,aclaimoffraudulent (#' inducementtoenterintothecontractasawholemustbesubmittedtoarbitration.  #  8      ׀ SeePrimaPaint ,   388U.S.at404.    @ll)IV. t   TheGuffysarguedbeforethetrialcourtthatthearbitrationprovisionswerewithouteffect L  becauseneitherthearbitrationprovisioncontainedintheAgreementnorthatfoundintheHome 8  BuyerAcknowledgmentwere additionallysignedorinitialedbythepartiesasrequiredbythe $ t TUAA.e  #  9      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.295302(a).TollBrothersprofferedthat PrimaPaint requiredthat  ` theGuffysclaimoffraudulentinducementbesubmittedtoarbitration.j  #  10      ׀ThetrialcourtdeniedToll  L  Brothersmotiontocompelarbitration,findingthatthearbitrationprovisioncontainedinthe  8  LimitedWarrantywastoonarrowtoinclude,withinitsambit,allegationsoffraudulentinducement $  tocontract.Aspreviouslynoted,thetrialcourtdidnotmakeanyparticularfindingsastowhether   ornottheFAAortheTUAAapplied.         Withoutknowingthebasisforthetrialcourtsdecision,weareunabletoruleonthequestion   oflawputbeforeusbyTollBrothers,thatis,whetherthetrialcourterredindenyingitsmotionto  compelarbitration.TheFAAwouldapply(1)ifthepartiesexpresslyagreeditwouldapply,or(2)  intheabsenceofsuchanagreementandintheabsenceofanagreementthatTennesseelawwould t apply,ifthepartiescontract evidenc[es]atransactioninvolvingcommerce.Baseduponthe ` recordbeforeus,wecannotmakeadeterminationoneitherissue.Therecordbeforeusislacking, L  asitdoesnotincludeallofthecontractdocuments.Itisnotappropriateforthiscourt,atan 8  appellatelevel,tomakefindingsoffactrelativetowhetherthepartiesagreementinvolvedinterstate $ t commerce.Aswefind completejusticecannotbehadbyreasonofsomedefectintherecord,we  ` finditisappropriatetoremandthisactiontothetrialcourt forfurtherproceedings,withproper  L  directionstoeffectuatetheobjectsoftheorder,anduponsuchtermsasmaybedeemedright.Tenn.  8  CodeAnn.273128(2000). $    Wedirectthetrialcourttodeterminetwoissuesbearinguponthequestionofwhichoneof   thetwostatutoryschemesappliesinthiscase.First,thetrialcourtshoulddetermineiftheparties   expressedtheirintentionthattheFAAwouldgoverntheirarbitrationagreement.Ifthetrialcourt   findsthatthepartiesdidnotexpresslyconsenttobeboundbytheFAA,thetrialcourtmustthen p determinewhethertheAgreement evidenc[es]atransactioninvolvingcommerce,thereby \ compellingtheapplicationoftheFAAunder9U.S.C.2.Ifitisultimatelydeterminedthatthe H FAAgoverns,then,underthedictatesof PrimaPaint anditsprogeny,theGuffysclaimof 4 fraudulentinducementtoenterintothewholecontractmustbesubmittedtoarbitration.Inthe  p absenceofanallegationoffraudulentinducementtoenterintothearbitrationprovision,thereis  \ nothingundertheFAAtosubmitforjudicialresolution.Additionally,undertherubricoftheFAA, H theTUAAprovisionrelieduponbytheGuffys,whichrequiresthattheprovisionbeadditionally 4 signedorinitialed,wouldbewithouteffectasitispreemptedbytheFAA.   @)V.    TheGuffysarguethatTollBrothersargumentthattheFAAgovernsarbitrationinthis  matterwaswaivedbecause,accordingtotheGuffys,TollBrothersfailedtoraisetheissueinthetrial l court.Inparticular,theGuffysprofferthatnowhereinthepleadingsdoesTollBrothersraisethe X  issueoftheapplicabilityoftheFAA.However,wefindthatTollBrothersdidraisetheargument. D! Basedontherecordbeforeus,TollBrothersproceededontwotheoriesinthetrialcourt!thatthe 0"  signaturejustbelowthearbitrationprovisionintheHomeBuyerAcknowledgmentsatisfiesthe #l! additionalsigning/initialingrequirementoftheTUAA,andthattheGuffysallegationoffraudulent $X" inducementwithrespecttothecontractasawholewassubjecttoarbitrationundertheFAA,asthe $D # HomeBuyerAcknowledgmentevincesthepartiesintenttobegovernedbytheFAA.Itiswell %0!$ settledthatthiscourt canonlyconsidersuchmattersaswerebroughttotheattentionofthe[trial &"% court],andacteduponorpretermittedbyhim S. Clementv.Nichols ,209S.W.2d23,23(Tenn. '#& 1948).However,inthiscase,webelievethattheapplicabilityoftheFAAwasplacedbeforethetrial (#' court.Accordingly,theGuffysissueofwaiverisfoundtobewithoutmerit. )$(   ,^'* @ll)VI.    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisvacated.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurther .~ proceedings,consistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellees,theGuffys,the j Primms,theFelks,andtheFines.  V    `     h   _______________________________       `     h   CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE