2017 ORS 646A.112¹
Injunction of sham sale
  • evidence
  • attorney fees
  • defense
  • definitions

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Appropriate court” has the meaning given that term in ORS 646.605 (Definitions for ORS 336.184 and 646.605 to 646.652).

(b) “Relevant market” means:

(A) A product market that consists of products or services that a consumer would regard as interchangeable or substitutable by reason of the products’ or services’ characteristics, prices and intended use; or

(B) A geographic market that consists of the area in which the persons concerned are involved in the supply of a product or service and in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogenous.

(c) “Sham sale” means a going out of business sale, as defined in ORS 646A.100 (Definitions for ORS 646A.100 to 646A.110), conducted with the intent to continue the same or a similar business in the same location or at a location within the same relevant market but that is a sale that is represented as being conducted due to a cessation of business.

(2) A person may bring an action in an appropriate court to enjoin another person in the same relevant market from conducting a sham sale if the person reasonably believes the other person is conducting a sham sale. The court may provide such equitable relief as it deems necessary or proper.

(3) In an action brought by a person under this section, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the person.

(4) It is prima facie evidence that a person alleged to be conducting a sham sale has the intent to continue the same or a similar business if:

(a) The person regularly receives additional inventory during the sham sale or, immediately prior to the sham sale, receives additional inventory that is not regularly delivered;

(b) The sham sale exceeds 90 days; or

(c) The same or a similar business that consists of inventory remaining from the sham sale and that has the same principal ownership resumes business in the same relevant market within 12 months from the cessation of the business.

(5) It is an affirmative defense to an action brought under this section that, during an alleged sham sale, the person no longer needed to go out of business and immediately canceled the alleged sham sale. [2007 c.820 §7]

Law Review Cita­tions

52 WLR 451 (2016)

(formerly 646.315 to 646.375)

Notes of Decisions

Where purchaser fails to provide notice of condi­tion requiring repair, presump­tion does not arise that repair time exceeding 30 business days demonstrates inability of manufacturer to conform vehicle. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Repair time exceeding 30 business days as evidence of inability to conform vehicle applies only to presently existing defect. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 329 (1983)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 646A—Trade Regulation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors646A.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 646A, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano646A.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.