Opinion ID: 1197903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Application of Chapter 599B to Erwin's Business

Text: Erwin argues that the district court erred in finding that he was a seller under Chapter 599B. Before the district court, Erwin argued that he is not a seller because he is not engaged in any business activities defined by the statute. At the district court and on appeal, he argues that his business activities do not cause the harm which the legislature intended to protect against by enacting Chapter 599B. For these reasons, Erwin maintains that his business is not subject to regulation by Chapter 599B. We disagree. The plain language of the statute covers Erwin's business. Chapter 599B regulates telephone solicitation in Nevada in order to protect consumers from fraud. See NRS 599B.005. It requires a person who is a seller to register, pay a $6,000 annual fee, and post a bond. Seller is defined by NRS 599B.010(8)(c)(2), which states: 8. [S]eller means any person who, on his own behalf, causes or attempts to cause a solicitation by telephone to be made through the use of one or more salesmen or any automated dialing announcing device under any of the following circumstances: ... . (c) The solicitation by telephone is made by the person in response to inquiries generated by advertisements that represent or imply that the person is offering to sell any: ... . (2) Information or opinions relating to sporting events. Pursuant to NRS 599B.010(8)(c)(2), a seller includes someone who responds to inquiries generated by an advertisement and offers to sell information relating to sporting events. By advertising in sports newspapers, Erwin initiates contact with prospective purchasers of his service. Prospective customers telephone Erwin in response to his advertisements. Once a person subscribes to the service, Erwin provides sports information over the telephone. [1] Erwin's business activities clearly qualify him as a seller within the definition of NRS 599B.010(8)(c)(2). While Erwin maintains that the majority of his clients are referrals from other clients, he admits that at least some of his clientele consists of persons who read his advertisements, call the 800 number listed in the advertisement, speak with his employees, and decide to purchase his service. Erwin also admits that his business is selling information regarding sporting events. Therefore, the plain language of NRS 599B.010(8)(c)(2) covers his business. Erwin argues that his business activities do not cause the harm and loss which the legislature intended to curtail by enacting Chapter 599B and that the legislative history does not substantiate the notion that the legislature intended to include his business in the regulation. Based upon our considered review of the legislative history, we disagree. In any event, we note that this court does not need to look to the legislative history to discover the meaning of Chapter 599B because the plain language of the statute covers Erwin's conduct. `Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, and its meaning clear and unmistakable, there is no room for construction, and the courts are not permitted to search for its meaning beyond the statute itself.' Charlie Brown Constr. Co. v. Boulder City, 106 Nev. 497, 503, 797 P.2d 946, 949 (1990) (quoting State v. Jepsen, 46 Nev. 193, 196, 209 P. 501, 502 (1922)). The language of Chapter 599B clearly and unambiguously contemplates the type of business activities in which Erwin is engaged. We hold that Erwin is a seller under Chapter 599B.