the TTPA to services. Greene County Tire & Supply, Inc. v. Spurlin, 207 Tenn. 189, 338 S.W.2d 597 (1960) (upholding a non-competitive agreement incident to the sale of a business without addressing the defense that the agreement violated the TTPA); Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc. v. Cook Truck Lines, Inc., 296 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1956) (affirming issuance of an injunction requiring the defendants to provide their customary services to the plaintiff without discussing the plaintiff’s claim under the TTPA). Four of the Plaintiffs' more recent cases did not address whether the TTPA applies to services because the restraint at issue involved tangible goods or the TTPA claim was dismissed on other grounds. Piccadilly Square v. Int’l Constr. Co., 782 S.W.2d 178, 184 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1989) (<HOLDING>); Dzik & Dzik, P.C. v. Vision Serv. Plan, No.
holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record on direct appeal is without merit holding that the defendants assertion that a construction contract violated the ttpa was without merit because there was nothing in the contract or the record supporting such a claim recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record is without merit