WPC? # ܩl55SC*#ZJ΀}.#YĹyvocl]1kv_)vhl]A!1ӅZbdbb9^WēĨW9=İ^MӶd n "&-G`6(*ۇ3"Y(by)9(M&MѤȏ;|)AdT;^uU BO>l> D3l?U:?HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular( U$  ((2 $ U!   X  XNX `   0  - - '(E)*D+!e,b-./Ӏ9_#3|x9  $  X @ @XX `   1    _Accordingtosomecontemporaryaccounts,Congresshaddebatedendingstateregulation  oftruckingasfarbackasearly1992.SeeWhatdoSears,Nader,FritoLay,andBushHaveIn  Common?,BusinessWeek,April6,1992,at30.Thepreemptionlanguagewasincludedinarider  placedonamultibilliondollarairportfundingbillinJune1994.SeeCheap_Truckin_,National  Review,Nov.7,1994,at54.(#$  0    X$  X @ @XX `   7    _TheICCsletternotifyingthepartiesthatitsJune3,1994noticeofapprovalhadbecome  finalstatedonlythat [_b]efore_Ԁtheinvolvedauthoritycanbeissuedinthenewowners[sic]name,aNoticeofConsummationsignedbybothpartiesmustbefiledwiththeCommission.Thisnoticeshouldbeinletterformandmustincludethesignaturesofbothparties.TheICCdidnotestablishadeadlineforfilingthisletter.  X$  X @ @XX `   6    _TheCongressrecognizedthatthepreemptionprovisionwoulddevalueexistingcertificates  ofconvenienceandnecessity.Theconferencecommitteesreportstates:8 `  DuringthehearingonpreemptionofStateregulationheldbytheHouseCommitteeonPublicWorksandTransportationonJuly20,1994,concernswereraisedregardingthedevaluationofoperatingrightsanditseffectonmotorcarriers,asaresultofpreemptionofStateauthoritytoregulatetheprice,route,orserviceforintrastatetransportation.SomemotorcarriershavepurchasedorpaidtoacquiretheauthoritytooperatetrucksinmanyStates.Theseoperatingrightsformanymotorcarriers,especiallysmallcarriers,areanimportantpartoftheirnetbusinessassets.Theconfereesrecognizethatthiswilleliminatetheassetvalueoftheoperatingauthorityofthoseaffectedmotorcarriers. ` (#` (# H.R.Conf.Rep.No.103677,at8889(1994),reprintedin1994_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ1715,176061.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular 7 X$  X @ @XX `   8    _Thestatutecontainsseveralexceptionstothegeneralpreemptiverulewhicharenot  applicabletothiscase. . $  X @ @XX `   2    _SeeH.R.Conf.Rep.No.103677(1994),reprintedin1994_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ1715.  X$  X @ @XX `   9    _U.S.Const.art.1,1,veststhefederalgovernmentslawmakingpowerintheCongress.  SeeYoungstownSheet&TubeCo.v.Sawyer,343U.S.579,58889,72S.Ct.863,867(1952).  However,thelawspassedbyCongresscannottakeeffectuntiltheyhavebeenpresentedtothePresidentunderthePresentmentClauseinU.S.Const.art.I,7,cl.2.LegislationthathasnotbeenpassedbybothhousesofCongressandpresentedtothePresidentcannotbecomelaw.SeeClinton p v.CityofNewYork,___U.S.___,___,1998WL333013,at*14(U.S.June25,1998);_I.N.S._Ԁv. `  _Chadha_,462U.S.at95758,103S.Ct.at2787.  X$  X @ @XX `   1    _Accordingtosomecontemporaryaccounts,Congresshaddebatedendingstateregulation  oftruckingasfarbackasearly1992.SeeWhatdoSears,Nader,FritoLay,andBushHaveIn @ Common?,BusinessWeek,April6,1992,at30.Thepreemptionlanguagewasincludedinarider 0 placedonamultibilliondollarairportfundingbillinJune1994.SeeCheap_Truckin_,National  p Review,Nov.7,1994,at54.skyline - jordan opinion  '  0 .   w$ '"  Z 6Times New Roman RegularU  X$  X @ @XX `   10    _Anargumentcanbemadethatthe federalpreemptiveactiondidnotoccuruntilJanuary  1,1995when49U.S.C.A.14501(c)becameeffective.ThiscasedoesnotrequireustochoosebetweenAugust23,1994andJanuary1,1995becausebothdatesoccuraftertheconsummationdateofthepartiescontract. . X$  X @ @XX `   2    _SeeH.R.Conf.Rep.No.103677(1994),reprintedin1994_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ1715. b X$  X @ @XX `   4    _SeeStatementbyPresidentWilliamJ.ClintonUponSigningH.R.2739,reprintedin1994  _U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ17621. G X$  X @ @XX `   5    _SeeFederalAviationAdministrationAuthorizationActof1994,Pub.L.No.103305,  601(d),108Stat.1607(1994).  X$  X @ @XX `   3    _See49U.S.C.A.14501(c)(West1997).Thefederalstatutecontainsseveralspecific  exceptionstotherestrictionofstateregulation,noneofwhichareapplicablehere.  $  X @ @!XX `   3    _See49U.S.C.A.14501(c)(West1997).Thefederalstatutecontainsseveralspecific  exceptionstotherestrictionofstateregulation,noneofwhichareapplicablehere. d'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular b $  X @ @#XX `   4    _SeeStatementbyPresidentWilliamJ.ClintonUponSigningH.R.2739,reprintedin1994  _U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ17621.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular G $  X @ @%XX `   5    _SeeFederalAviationAdministrationAuthorizationActof1994,Pub.L.No.103305,  601(d),108Stat.1607(1994).'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $  X @ @'XX `   6    _TheCongressrecognizedthatthepreemptionprovisionwoulddevalueexistingcertificates  ofconvenienceandnecessity.Theconferencecommitteesreportstates:8 `  DuringthehearingonpreemptionofStateregulationheldbytheHouseCommitteeonPublicWorksandTransportationonJuly20,1994,concernswereraisedregardingthedevaluationofoperatingrightsanditseffectonmotorcarriers,asaresultofpreemptionofStateauthoritytoregulatetheprice,route,orserviceforintrastatetransportation.SomemotorcarriershavepurchasedorpaidtoacquiretheauthoritytooperatetrucksinmanyStates.Theseoperatingrightsformanymotorcarriers,especiallysmallcarriers,areanimportantpartoftheirnetbusinessassets.Theconfereesrecognizethatthiswilleliminatetheassetvalueoftheoperatingauthorityofthoseaffectedmotorcarriers. ` (#` (# H.R.Conf.Rep.No.103677,at8889(1994),reprintedin1994_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ1715,176061.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $  X @ @)XX `   7    _TheICCsletternotifyingthepartiesthatitsJune3,1994noticeofapprovalhadbecome  finalstatedonlythat [_b]efore_Ԁtheinvolvedauthoritycanbeissuedinthenewowners[sic]name,aNoticeofConsummationsignedbybothpartiesmustbefiledwiththeCommission.Thisnoticeshouldbeinletterformandmustincludethesignaturesofbothparties.TheICCdidnotestablishadeadlineforfilingthisletter.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular 7 $  X @ @+XX `   8    _Thestatutecontainsseveralexceptionstothegeneralpreemptiverulewhicharenot  applicabletothiscase.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $  X @ @-XX `   9    _U.S.Const.art.1,1,veststhefederalgovernmentslawmakingpowerintheCongress.  SeeYoungstownSheet&TubeCo.v.Sawyer,343U.S.579,58889,72S.Ct.863,867(1952).  However,thelawspassedbyCongresscannottakeeffectuntiltheyhavebeenpresentedtothePresidentunderthePresentmentClauseinU.S.Const.art.I,7,cl.2.LegislationthathasnotbeenpassedbybothhousesofCongressandpresentedtothePresidentcannotbecomelaw.SeeClinton p v.CityofNewYork,___U.S.___,___,1998WL333013,at*14(U.S.June25,1998);_I.N.S._Ԁv. `  _Chadha_,462U.S.at95758,103S.Ct.at2787.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular  $  X @ @/XX `   10    _Anargumentcanbemadethatthe federalpreemptiveactiondidnotoccuruntilJanuary  1,1995when49U.S.C.A.14501(c)becameeffective.ThiscasedoesnotrequireustochoosebetweenAugust23,1994andJanuary1,1995becausebothdatesoccuraftertheconsummationdateofthepartiescontract.'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular12345C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  66' dxdP Pd 2"  9 9b  9   Ad FILED9X; X 9b  July15,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh  'dxd,@AZ"Arial Regular U!   ++++_XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7fdd7    ќ 999//r078<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  r9//@ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE99@)DATNASHVILLE  h f9t078>.*jx.z` `@EN` 8ttxP z tߛ9LARRYG.TRAIL, h      p )    `     h      p ) ` Plaintiff/Appellee,     p )  >  `     h      p )VS. `     h      p ) j   `     h      p )TRANSPORTATIONMANAGEMENT p )  RutherfordChancery F  SERVICES,   h      p )  No.94CV954 \   `     h      p ) ` Defendant/Appellee,     p )   `     h      p )  AppealNo.  AND `     h      p )  01A019607CH00314   `     h      p )SKYLINETRANSPORTATION,INC., p ) 0  `     h      p ) ` Defendant/Appellant.     p )  \ f@I I DAPPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURT d @%DFORRUTHERFORDCOUNTY@"DATMURFREESBORO,TENNESSEE@3 3 DTHEHONORABLEROBERTE._CORLEW_,III,CHANCELLOR#f #7fForTransportation_Management_ԀServices: p ForSkylineTransportation,Inc.: )$! RolandM.Lowell   h      p LindaJ.Hamilton_Mowles_#f7; # ,'$ 7fBruce,Weathers,_Corley_,_Dughman_Ԁ&Lyle p Lewis,King,_Krieg_,_Waldrop_Ԁ&_Catron_#f7 # -(% 7fNashville,Tennessee#f7 # h      p 7fKnoxville,Tennessee#f7~# .)& f @%DAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  61- f `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  F<72 f   @)DOPINIONf    ` Thisappealinvolvesadisputebetweentwotruckingcompaniesoverthe_enforceability_ԀofacontracttosellintrastateoperatingrightsalongspecifiedroutesinMiddleandEastTennessee.Thepurchaserdeclinedtohonorthecontractwhenitbecameworthlessasaresultoffederalderegulationofintrastatecommercialtrucking.InaninterpleaderactionfiledintheChanceryCourtforRutherfordCounty,thesellerassertedthatthepurchaser++breached++thecontract,andthepurchaserassertedthatthecontract++permittedittocancelintheeventofderegulation.Thetrialcourtgrantedthesellersmotionforsummaryjudgmentafterdeterminingthatthepurchaserdidnothavetherighttocancelthecontractbecausethefederalderegulationoccurredafterthecontractsconsummationdate.Thepurchaserassertsonthisappealthatitisentitledtorelieffromitscontractualobligationbecausethecontractwasessentiallyworthless.Wehavedeterminedthatthecontractremainsenforceableand,therefore,affirmthetrialcourt.@.D I.  W!"  ` SkylineTransportation,Inc.andTransportationManagementServices,Inc.aretruckingcompaniesoperatinginTennessee.SkylinedesiredtopurchaseseveralofTransportationManagementsroutesinMiddleandEastTennessee,andonDecember27,1993,thetwocompaniesenteredintoacontractwhereinSkylineagreedtoacquiretherightsfor$80,000.Atthetimeofthistransaction,thesaleandtransferofoperatingauthorityfromonetruckingcompanytoanotherrequiredapprovalbybothfederalandstateregulators.Accordingly,thepartiesagreedthatSkylinewouldplace$8,000inescrowwhenthecontractwasexecutedandwouldpaytheremainingbalanceaftertheappropriatestateandfederalregulatoryauthoritiesapprovedthesale. ` Bothcompanieswereawareofdiscussionsonthenationalleveltoderegulatetheintrastatetruckingbusinessandunderstoodthattruckingcompanieswouldnotberequiredtoobtainstateregulatoryapprovaltooperateonintrastateroutesifthese 95@ effortsweresuccessful.Recognizingthatderegulationwouldrendertheircontractworthless,thepartiesincludedthefollowingprovisionintheircontract:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Theoperatingrights++comtemplated++[sic]hereinshallbetransferredbySELLERtoPURCHASERnolaterthanthe++consumation++[sic]date,byallnecessarydocumentswhichthepartiesherebyagreetoexecute,includingbutnotlimitedtoabillofsale,andsubjecttoconditionssetoutherein,whichdocumentsshallconferonPURCHASERgoodandmerchantabletitletoallofsaidoperatingrightsfreeandclearofanyandallliens,claimsand++encumberances++[sic]ofanykindwhatever.ShouldanypreemptiveactionbythefederalgovernmentorshouldtheStateofTennessee,nolongerrequireoperatingauthorityforintrastatemotorcarriertransportation,priortotheconsummationdatehereof,thenPURCHASERshallhavetheoptionofterminatingandcancelingthisAgreementandhavingallmoniesheldintrustorescrowreturnedtoitforthwith.   Thecontractexpresslydefinedthe consummationdateas adatefallingaftertheeffectivedateofthefinalgrantordersoftheICCapprovingthistransaction,andfallingwithinthetimepermittedbythefinalgrantorderstoconsummatethistransactionprovidedtherein,anduponorderoftheTennesseePublicServiceCommissionrecognizingtransferofownershipofthecertificates. ` OnApril22,1994,theInterstateCommerceCommission( ICC)grantedSkylinetemporaryoperatingauthoritytoleasetherightscoveredbyitscontractwithTransportationManagement.OnJune3,1994,theICCpublishedanoticethatithadapprovedthecompletetransferoftheoperatingrightsfromTransportationManagementtoSkyline.WhenthisapprovalbecamefinalonAugust3,1994,theICCnotifiedthepartiesthatitwouldissuetheoperatingauthorityinSkylinesnamewhenthepartiessubmittedajointlysignednoticeofconsummation.OnAugust8,1994,theTennesseePublicServiceCommission( _PSC_)enteredanorderdirectingthatitsrecordsbeamendedtoreflectthetransferofTransportationManagementsintrastatecertificatestoSkylineinorder toconformthisagencysrecordstofederallaw. ` WhileSkylineandTransportationManagementwereseekingfederalandstateregulatoryapprovalforthetransferofTransportationManagementsauthoritytoSkyline,legislationderegulatingintrastatetransportationofpropertywaswindingits :L6= waythroughtheCongress.InOctober1993,theHouseofRepresentativespassedtheAviationInfrastructureActof1993thatcontainednoprovisionspreemptingstateregulationofintrastatetrucking.However,inJune1994,theSenatereplacedtheHousebillwiththeFederalAviationAuthorizationActof1994thatincludedaprovisionpreemptingstateregulationofintrastatetrucking._+++ +  #  1      _ԀOnAugust5,1994,a 4  conferencecommitteeapprovedtheFederalAviationAuthorizationActof1994withmodificationsandrecommendeditforpassage._+++@+  #  2      _ԀOnAugust8,1994,theHouseof v  RepresentativesandtheSenateagreedtotheconferencecommitteereportcontainingthepreemptionprovision.++++  #  3      ׀ThePresidentapprovedthelegislationonAugust23,   1994,_+@ ++" +  #  4      _ԀanditbecameeffectiveaccordingtoitsowntermsonJanuary1,1995.+ ++$H +  #  5      ׀The Y preemptionprovisionintheFederalAviationAuthorizationActof1994renderedTransportationManagementscertificatesofconvenienceandnecessityfortheintrastateroutesdesiredbySkylineessentiallyworthless._+ ++&+  #  6      _ <  ` SometimeduringthesecondweekofAugust1994,SkylinelearnedthattheHouseofRepresentativesandtheSenatehadpassedtheFederalAviation o AdministrationAuthorizationActof1994containingthepreemptionprovision.OnAugust18,1994,TransportationManagementforwardedthenoticeofconfirmationrequiredbytheICCtoSkylineforitssignature.OnAugust22,1994,SkylineinformedTransportationManagementthatitdeclinedtoexecutethenoticeofconsummationandthatitwasexercisingitsrighttocancelthecontract. ` OnAugust25,1994,theattorneyholdingSkylinesinitial_escrowed_ԀpaymentfiledaninterpleaderactionintheChanceryCourtforRutherfordCountyrequestingadeterminationofthepartiesrightsandobligationstothemoneybeingheldinescrow.TransportationManagementandSkylineansweredthecomplaintandjoinedissueonwhetherSkylinehadbreachedthecontractbydecliningtoexecutethenoticeofconsummationandbydecliningtopayTransportationManagementtheremainingbalancedueunderthecontract.Bothpartieseventuallyfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgment.OnJanuary31,1996,thetrialcourtgrantedTransportationManagementssummaryjudgmentmotion,findingthatSkylinecouldnotcancelthecontractbecausethefederallegislationbecameeffectiveafterthecontractsselfdefinedconsummationdate.Skylinethenperfectedthisappeal.@.D II.  "R$  ` TheessenceofSkylinespositioninthiscaseisnotdifficulttograsp.ItsignedacontracttopurchasetherightstooperateoverroutesownedbyTransportationManagementandagreedtopayapricefortheserightscommensuratewithitsestimationoftheirvalueatthetime.BeforeSkylinepaidtheagreedprice,therightsitpurchasedlosttheirvaluethroughnofaultofeitherSkylineorTransportationManagement.Skylinenowdoesnotdesiretopay$80,000foroperatingrightsthatareavailabletoitatnocostandarguesthat [e]quityshouldacknowledgetheproprietyofrelieving[it]...fromanyobligationtopayeightythousanddollarsforatransferofsomethingwhichhasabsolutelynovalue.... ` Itisimportanttorecognizefromtheoutsetthatthisisnotacaseofcommercialfrustration.EversincethedestructionofthedancehallinvolvedinthecaseofTaylor 8 4@ v.Caldwell,122Eng.Rep.309(_K.B._Ԁ1863),thelawhasrecognizedthatapartys q:5B performanceunderacontractmaybeexcused,when,throughneitherpartysfault,thecontractsprinciplepurposehasbeentotallythwarted.Inmodernparlance,thedoctrineofcommercialfrustrationexcusesa_promisor_Ԁfromperformingwhenthepromisor_Ԁcanshow(1)thattheriskofthefrustratingeventwasneitherforeseennorcausedbythepartiesand(2)thatthefrustratingeventhasdestroyedornearlydestroyedeitherthevalueoftheperformanceortheobjectorpurposeofthecontract.SeeWilliamsv.Whitehead,854S.W.2d895,897(Tenn.Ct.App.1993);_Haun_Ԁv. v  King,690S.W.2d869,871(Tenn.Ct.App.1984);Restatement(Second)of g  Contracts265(1981).Thedoctrineaffordsameansbywhichcourtsallocateariskwhenthepartieshavenotanticipatedorallocatedtheriskintheiragreement.SeeIn Y reM&MTransp.Co.,13_B.R._Ԁ861,86970(_Bankr_._S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1981). J  `  Thefrustratingeventinthiscaseisthederegulationoftheintrastate < truckingbusiness.BothSkylineandTransportationManagementwerecognizantthatstateorfederalregulatorsmight nolongerrequireoperatingauthorityforintrastatemotorcarriertransportationandincludedintheiragreementaspecificprovisionallocatingtheriskthatderegulationmightoccur.Thefactthattheywerebothawareofthepossibilityofderegulationplacesthiscasebeyondthecommercialfrustrationdoctrine.Thepartiesarenotentitledtoriskallocationbyoperationoflawwhentheyhaveallocatedtheverysameriskforthemselves.Accordingly,ourtaskinthiscaseistoascertainandgiveeffecttothepartiesriskallocationasreflectedintheircontract.@-D III.  '*w%.  ` Thepartiestookthepossibilityofderegulationintoaccountduringtheirnegotiations.TransportationManagementinitiallyproposedtogiveSkylinetherighttocancelthecontractiftheStateceasedrequiringoperatingauthorityforintrastateroutesbeforethecontractsconsummationdatebutlateragreedtoSkylinesproposaltoextendtherightofcancellationtocircumstanceswherethefederalgovernmentpreemptedstateregulationofmotorcarriersbeforethecontractsconsummationdate.Accordingly,wemustlooktothecontracttoanswerthefollowingthreeoutcomedeterminativequestions:(1)whendidthecontractsconsummationdateoccur,(2)whendidthefederalgovernmentpreemptstateregulationofintrastatemotorcarriers q:5B orwhendidtheStateceaserequiringoperatingauthorityforintrastateroutes,and(3)didthefederalgovernmentpreemptstateregulationofintrastatemotorcarriersordidtheStateceaserequiringoperatingauthorityforintrastateroutesbeforethecontractsconsummationdate.@.D A.   %   ` Contractingpartiesarefreetoallocaterisksastheyseefit.SeeWilsonv. g  TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,219Tenn.560,566,411S.W.2d699,702(1966);   BrownBros.,Inc.v.Metropolitan_Govt_,877S.W.2d745,749(Tenn.Ct.App.1993). Y Whentheyhavereducedtheiragreementtowriting,theirrightsandobligationsaregovernedbytheirwrittencontract.See_Cookeville_ԀGynecology&Obstetrics,P.C.v.  SoutheasternData_Sys_.,Inc.,884S.W.2d458,461(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Courtsdo < notconcernthemselveswiththewisdomorfollyofcontracts,seeChapmanDrugCo. - v.Chapman,207Tenn.502,516,341S.W.2d392,398(1960);Brooksv.Networks ~ ofChattanooga,Inc.,946S.W.2d321,324(Tenn.Ct.App.1996),andarenotat o libertytorelievepartiesfromobligationsthatlaterprovetobeburdensomeorunwise.SeeHillsboroPlazaEnters.v.Moon,860S.W.2d45,47(Tenn.Ct.App. a " 1993). ` Courtsmustinterpretcontractsaswritten.SeeBobPearsallMotors,Inc.v. D% ( RegalChryslerPlymouth,Inc.,521S.W.2d578,580(Tenn.1975).Wereviewthe &5"* contractasawhole.SeeWarrenv.Metropolitan_Govt_,955S.W.2d618,623(Tenn. (#, Ct.App.1997);Wilsonv.Moore,929S.W.2d367,373(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).We '*w%. mustalsogiveacontractslanguageitsplain,natural,andordinarymeaning,see +'0 _Hardeman_ԀCountyBankv._Stallings_,917S.W.2d695,699(Tenn.Ct.App.1995); i-(2 _Gredig_Ԁv.TennesseeFarmersMut.Ins.Co.,891S.W.2d909,912(Tenn.Ct.App.  /Z*4 1994),andmustavoidstrainedinterpretationsthatcreateambiguitieswherenoneexist.SeeFarmersPeoplesBankv._Clemmer_,519S.W.2d801,805(Tenn.1975); L2-8 EmpressHealthandBeautySpa,Inc.v.Turner,503S.W.2d188,19091(Tenn. 3=/: 1973). q:5B @.D B.    ` Thetwodatesmaterialtotheresolutionofthisdisputearethecontracts consummationdateandthedateofthefederalgovernments preemptiveaction.Thecontractdoesnotidentifyaspecificconsummationdatebutratherstatesthatthe consummationdatemust(1)followtheeffectivedateoftheICCsfinalorderapprovingthetransaction,(2)occurduringthetimeperiodpermittedbytheICCsorder,and(3)be upontheorderoftheTennesseePublicServiceCommissionrecognizingtransferofownershipofthecertificates.Theconsummationdateisnotthesameastheclosingdatebecausethecontractstatesthatconductingaclosingisoptional. ` Thephrase upontheorderoftheTennesseePublicServiceCommissionrecognizingtransferofownershipofthecertificatessuppliestheclearestindicationofthepartiesintentions.Whenintroducingaconditionorevent,thepreposition uponusuallyconnotes ontheoccasionofor atthetimeofwithlittleornointervalthereafter.SeeWebstersThirdNewInternationalDictionary2518(1971);   BryanA.Garner,ADictionaryofModernLegalUsage904(2ded.1995). a " Accordingly,asweconstruethecontract,itsconsummationdateisthedateonwhichthetransactionreceivesfinalregulatoryapprovalfromthe_PSC_.++Thisinterpretationisconsistentwiththepartiesunderstandingthatthetransferoftheroutescouldnottakeeffectuntiltheyobtainedbothfederalandstateregulatoryapproval.++ ` TheICCsorderbecamefinalonAugust3,1994.Itdidnotcontainaspecifictimeperiodforconsummatingthetransaction.+ ++(+  #  7      ׀Thereafter,onAugust8,1994,the +'0 _PSC_Ԁ recognizedtheICCsfinalorder.The_PSC_sorderrepresentedthelastregulatoryhurdleforthepartiestransaction,andtherefore,thecontractsconsummationdatefellonAugust8,1994.  L2-8  ` Thefinaldatetobedeterminedisthedatethatthefederalgovernmenttook preemptiveaction.UndertheSupremacyClauseinU.S.Const.art.VI,cl.2,preemptionoccurswhenthereisanactualconflictbetweenfederalandstatelaw,see B FreightlinerCorp.v._Myrick_,514U.S.280,287,115S.Ct.1483,1487(1995),or   whenCongressslegislationissopervasivethatitleavesnoroomforstatelegislativeaction.See_Cipollone_Ԁv._Liggett_ԀGroup,Inc.,505U.S.504,516,112S.Ct.2608,  %  2617(1992).Congressionalintenttopreemptstatelawmustbereflectedinthetextandstructureofthefederalstatute,seeIngersollRandCo.v._McClendon_,498U.S. g  133,138,111S.Ct.478,482(1990),andthebestevidenceofpreemptiveintentisanexpresspreemptionclause.See_CSX_ԀTransp.,Inc.v.Easterwood,507U.S.658, Y 664,113S.Ct.1732,1737(1993). ` TheFederalAviationAdministrationAuthorizationActof1994containsanexplicitprovisionpreemptingstateorlocalregulationofintrastatemotorcarrierswithrespecttothetransportationofproperty.+++*+  #  8      ׀See49U.S.C.A.14501(c)(1)(West ~ 1997).Accordingly,the federalpreemptiveactioncouldhaveoccurrednoearlierthantheenactmentoftheFederalAviationAdministrationAuthorizationActof1994.SincethefederallawmakingpowerissharedbybothhousesofCongressandthePresident,+++,p+  #  9      see_I.N.S._Ԁv._Chadha_,462U.S.919,947,103S.Ct.2764,2782(1983), "R$ theearliestdatethat federalpreemptiveactioncouldhaveoccurredwouldhavebeenAugust23,1994,whenthePresidentsignedthelegislation.+h ++. +  #  10      ׀ D% (  ` SkylinedidnothavearighttocancelitscontractwithTransportationManagementbecausethecontractsconsummationdateoccurredfifteendaysbeforethedateofthe federalpreemptiveaction.Accordingly,Skylinebreachedthe +'0 contractbydecliningtosignthenoticeofconsummationandbyrefusingtopayTransportationManagementtheremainingbalanceofthecontract.@.D IV.     ` Weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinionmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoSkylineTransportation,Inc.anditssuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue. `     h      p ______________________________ `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE_______________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE.  $ # .,,.,X,7&dd7ݸ& @ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @)DATNASHVILLE  h &&LARRYG.TRAIL, h      p )   `     h      p ) ` Plaintiff/Appellee,     p )    `     h      p )VS. `     h      p )  >  `     h      p )TRANSPORTATIONMANAGEMENT p )  RutherfordChancery j  SERVICES,   h      p )  No.94CV954 0   `     h      p ) ` Defendant/Appellee,     p ) \   `     h      p )  AppealNo. r  AND `     h      p )  01A019607CH00314   `     h      p )SKYLINETRANSPORTATION,INC., p )   `     h      p ) ` Defendant/Appellant.     p ) 0 #ݸ&jc# @(DJUDGMENT   \ &ݸ.& ` ThiscausecameontobeheardupontherecordonappealfromtheRutherfordCounty  ChanceryCourt,thebriefsoftheparties,andargumentsofcounsel.Uponconsiderationoftheentirerecord,thiscourtfindsandconcludesthatthetrialcourtsjudgmentshouldbeaffirmed. ` Inaccordancewiththeopinionfiledcontemporaneouslywiththisjudgment,itis,therefore,ordered,adjudged,anddecreedthatthetrialcourtsjudgmentbeandisherebyaffirmed,thatthecauseberemandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththiscourtsopinion,andthatthecostsbetaxedinthemannerprovidedinthisjudgment. ` ItisfurtherorderedthatthecostsofthisappealbetaxedtoSkylineTransportation,Inc.,principal,andLewis,King,Krieg,Waldro.&%&%&.'p'.('U'(.)&Catron,surety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary).*___*..̜.- ` ENTER_____________________.-.&. `     h     ______________________________ d4/4  `     h     SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE `     h     ______________________________ `     h     BENH._CANTRELL_,JUDGE `     h     ______________________________ `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE.