Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law Statute of Limitations

Uncategorized 6

The current provision of the Unfair Commercial Practices and Consumer Protection Act states: “Methods of unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of a trade or business. are declared illegal. 73 P.S. § 201-3 (emphasis added). “Trade” and “Trade” are defined in Article 201-2 (3) as “the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of. tangible or intangible property, real, personal or mixed property. Id. § 201-2 3) (emphasis added). Since unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the sale of immovable property are expressly declared illegal, the applicant`s assertion to the contrary is unfounded. [9] The fact that the sale of real property *392 is protected by the TPPA is consistent with its general remedies. Residential real estate is almost always a consumer`s most important purchase. Therefore, the impact of unfair or deceptive practices is the greatest in this type of transaction. If a business is found to have contravened the PCPA, it owes the consumer the greater of its actual damages, which is $100.

In addition, at the discretion of the court, the Company may have to pay the consumer up to three times the actual damages and provide reasonable attorneys` fees and costs. Triple damages may be awarded if the conduct of the business is considered by a court to be wilful or reckless for which the award of triple damages would remedy the situation. Prior to its amendment, the standard provision made illegal “any other fraudulent conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.” Pennsylvania courts have interpreted this provision as requiring proof of customary fraud. However, in 1996, the General Assembly amended the UTPCPL and revised the standard provision to include “fraudulent behaviour” among the prohibited practices. The amended standard provision makes it illegal to engage in “fraudulent or deceptive conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.” However, the law does not define the term “fraudulent conduct”. [5] While a complaint under the UTPCPL creates a new plea, it also leads to a new limitation period, which is to be discussed below. “Third Party Provider” means an independent seller of an Online Marketplace that sells, offers for sale, or contracts for a consumer product in the United States through an Online Marketplace. The term does not include any of the following: With the Gabriel decision expanding the scope of the UTPCPL, the law provides consumers with significant leverage – excessive leverage, according to many commercial interests – to address grievances in a variety of consumer transactions, ranging from goods and services to telemarketing, automotive sales and services, and real estate. Given that the 1996 amendments can lump all sorts of fraudulent conduct into the “catch-all” definition, there are surprisingly few strict restrictions on what does and is not an unfair commercial practice.

The benefit to claimants and the risk to businesses is that, in a law that provides remedies as robust as triple damage, the definition of “UTPs” remains to some extent in the eyes of the viewer. 4. Whether the high-volume third-party seller used a seller other than the one on the product list to deliver a consumer product prior to purchase and, at the request of the consumer who purchased the consumer product from the high-volume third-party seller through the online marketplace, information about the other vendor referred to in clauses (1), (2) and (3). [6] The UTPCPL was developed to promote full disclosure of information to consumers and “balance market position and consumer strength vis-à-vis seller”. Commonwealth v Monumental Properties, Inc., 459 Pa. 450, 467, 329 A.2d 812, 820 (1974). As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held, another exception to the rule that time does not go against the state is when there is an explicit law that restricts the conduct of the Commonwealth. With respect to “civil penalties,” the legislature enacted the following: Gregg is just the beginning of what should be a new frontier in UTPCPL jurisprudence, as litigants and courts seek to control all conservatory claims under the new strict liability structure. While there are many questions now, it is clear that providers now need to be more vigilant about how consumers perceive their behavior.

The sooner providers act to eliminate or mitigate their risks, the better. The UTPCPL also includes a “catch-all” clause that largely prohibits any other deceptive or fraudulent activity that is not on its list and that is likely to cause confusion or misunderstanding for a consumer. (1.1) `internet service provider` means a person who provides a service that enables users to access content, information, e-mails or other services offered via the internet, as well as to access content, information and other protected services as part of a package of services offered to consumers.

Comments are closed.

Accept all cookies across Medicine Gov websites, or check and change settings We use cookies to improve your online experience and help advertise