Notes of Decisions
Under this section, plaintiff need not allege or prove amount of ascertainable loss, when minimum claim of $200 is made. Scott v. Western Int. Sales, Inc., 267 Or 512, 517 P2d 661 (1973)
Ascertainable, as used in this section, means capable of being discovered, observed or established. Scott v. Western Int. Sales, Inc., 267 Or 512, 517 P2d 661 (1973)
A deliberate and calculated misrepresentation by a nonmanagerial employe justified imposition of punitive damages. Allen v. Morgan Drive Away, Inc., 273 Or 614, 542 P2d 896 (1975)
Where seller was aware that automobile had been involved in major accident, but misrepresented that it had suffered only normal wear and tear, imposition of punitive damages was justified. Byers v. Santiam Ford, Inc., 281 Or 411, 574 P2d 1122 (1978)
Under this section, no action lies unless defendants conduct is wilful; thus where plaintiff failed to allege wilfulness defendants demurrer to complaint should have been allowed. Luedeman v. Tri-West Construction Co., 39 Or App 401, 592 P2d 281 (1979)
Where defendant sold plaintiff mattresses and boxsprings which contained tags indicating items were second-hand, but represented that items were new, it was jury question whether plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to be put on inquiry prior to time he actually saw and read tags. Bodin v. B & L Furniture Co., 42 Or App 731, 601 P2d 848 (1979)
Requirement of this section that complaint be mailed to Attorney General is not jurisdictional defect, but judgment may not be entered until proof of mailing is filed. Bodin v. B & L Furniture Co., 42 Or App 731, 601 P2d 848 (1979)
Where evidence indicated that contractor misrepresented homeowners right to rescind contract, award of punitive damages under this section was proper, but misrepresentation concerning status of its license did not give rise to punitive damages. Tri-West Const. v. Hernandez, 43 Or App 961, 607 P2d 1375 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
Under this section, legislative intent is that jury can award punitive damages if it finds deterrence is called for and defendants conduct is particularly aggravated. Crooks v. Payless Drug Stores, 285 Or 481, 592 P2d 196 (1979)
Plaintiffs mere filing of complaint with Consumer Protection Division did not toll limitation period of this section. Myers v. MHI Investments, Inc., 44 Or App 467, 606 P2d 652 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant incurred expenses in obtaining a loan to pay plaintiffs charges for unauthorized repairs, these were an ascertainable loss under this section and entitled defendant to recover minimum penalty, punitive damages and attorney fees. Riviera Motors, Inc. v. Higbee, 45 Or App 545, 609 P2d 369 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
Where, inter alia, evidence showed that defendants agent was aware plaintiffs were particularly concerned about preserving view which property had; that he knew view was prime reason for price plaintiffs paid; that notwithstanding, he gave plaintiffs unfounded and unsupportable assurances that view would be protected from obstructing buildings; building restrictions were not included in adjacent properties before their sale and plaintiffs view was obstructed by subsequent construction; actions revealed deliberate and conscious effort to misrepresent and award of punitive damages was proper. Mabin v. Tualatin Development Co., 48 Or App 271, 616 P2d 1196 (1980)
Plaintiff could not recover under this section for defendants failure to disclose that they offered denturist services in their advertisement where evidence showed that plaintiff did not know there was a difference between dentists and denturists. Terry v. Holden-Dhein Enterprises, Ltd., 48 Or App 763, 618 P2d 7 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
Attorney fees are not ascertainable loss supporting action for damages. C.A.R. Tow, Inc. v. Corwin, 76 Or App 192, 708 P2d 644 (1985)
Menial agent rule does not apply in claims for punitive damages under this section. Teague Motor Company v. Rowton, 84 Or App 72, 733 P2d 93 (1987)
Where plaintiffs pled counterclaim asking for award of attorney fees pursuant to ORS 646.638 (Civil action by private party) (3) in summary judgment appeal, counterclaim constituted separate claim within meaning of ORCP 67B for purpose of judgment from which plaintiffs could appeal. Swagerty v. Joe Romania Chevrolet, 95 Or App 728, 770 P2d 967 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Trial court was authorized under this section to award attorney fees necessary to defend unlawful trade practices claim found to be frivolous, regardless of whether those fees also were necessary to defend fraud claim. Estate of Wesley E. Smith v. Ware, 307 Or 478, 769 P2d 773 (1989)
Allowing recovery of attorney fees under this provision does not preclude recovery under [former] ORS 18.540. Honeywell v. Sterling Furniture Co., 310 Or 206, 797 P2d 1019 (1990)
Action may be instituted in form of counterclaim to FED action. Hoffer v. Szumski, 129 Or App 7, 877 P2d 128 (1994)
Expense incurred and wages lost due to litigation are not recoverable as damages in claim for unfair trade practices. Hedrick v. Spear, 138 Or App 53, 907 P2d 1123 (1995)
Where complainant reasonably relies upon misrepresentation by defendant, misrepresentation may delay discovery date for limitation of action purposes. McCulloch v. Price Waterhouse LLP, 157 Or App 237, 971 P2d 414 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
On Review of Jurys Punitive Damages Award Under Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Reviewing Court Must Consider
1) statutory and common law factors that allow award of punitive damages; 2) states interest in protecting consumers by punishing violators and deterring violators and others from similar misconduct; 3) reprehensible nature of violators conduct; 4) ratio between punitive damages awarded and actual and potential harm caused by violators tortious conduct; and 5) range of sanctions provided in statute. Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 331 Or 537, 17 P3d 473 (2001)
Person who spends money to prevent unlawful trade practice does not suffer ascertainable loss of money or property as result of unlawful trade practice. Paul v. Providence Health System-Oregon, 237 Or App 584, 240 P3d 1110 (2010), Sup Ct review allowed
Law Review Citations
54 OLR 127-130 (1975); 73 OLR 639 (1994)
Notes of Decisions
A complaint which alleges in one count that defendants advertised automobile for sale with intent not to sell it as advertised, in a second count that there was a failure to disclose advertised price coupled with sale at greater amount sufficiently pleads action under Act. Sanders v. Francis, 277 Or 593, 561 P2d 1003 (1977)
Plaintiffs purchase of truck to carry on business of hauling freight in order to provide family investment and employment for family member did not fall within provisions of Act. Searle v. Exley Express, Inc., 278 Or 535, 564 P2d 1054 (1977)
Amendment of definition of trade and commerce to include advertising, offering or distributing, whether by sale, rental or otherwise, any real estate, goods or services does not indicate legislative intent to extend application of Unfair Trade Practices Act to loans and extensions of credit. Lamm v. Amfac Mortgage Corp., 44 Or App 203, 605 P2d 730 (1980)
There is no requirement that consumer prove all elements of common law fraud in order to recover damages under Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Raudebaugh v. Action Pest Control, 59 Or App 166, 650 P2d 1006 (1982)
Plaintiffs allegations that defendant escrow company represented that plaintiff would receive security interests on notes from sale of their business did not constitute misrepresentations actionable under Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Samuels v. Key Title Co., 63 Or App 627, 665 P2d 362 (1983), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
56 OLR 490 (1977); 13 WLJ 455 (1977)
Notes of Decisions
Where users of IUDs brought suit against manufacturer on variety of grounds, claiming damages for infertility, private enforcement provision of Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) does not provide remedy for personal injuries. Allen v. G.D. Searle and Co., 708 F Supp 1142 (D. Or. 1989)
For purposes of applying Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, real estate, goods or services are obtained primarily for personal, family or household purposes if (1) real estate, good or service is customarily purchased by substantial number of people for personal, family or household use and (2) person actually purchases real estate, good or service for personal, family or household use. Fowler v. Cooley, 239 Or App 338, 245 P3d 155 (2010)
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 335, 346, 408 (1972); 53 OLR 473-475 (1974)
Chapter 646
Notes of Decisions
Subject matter regulated by this chapter is not preempted by Federal Robinson-Patman Act so as to render this chapter invalid. W. J. Seufert v. Nat. Restaurant Supply Co., 266 Or 92, 511 P2d 363 (1973)
Whether an injunction should issue when a court finds a violation of the Act is a matter of discretion. State ex rel Johnson v. International Harvester Co., 25 Or App 9, 548 P2d 176 (1976)
This chapter imposes no affirmative duty to inform customers of rates in absence of request, but prohibits making information about prices available to some customers and not others. Wildish Sand & Gravel v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 103 Or App 215, 796 P2d 1237 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
