Consumer Protection
Decision
Environmental Services Inc. v. Hull Forest Products Inc.
-
- Subscription Required
Monday, April 8, 2013
Allegations that a seller falsely represents that an item advertised on Craigslist is "perfect" may not create a warranty or provide the buyer a cause of action for misrepresentation.
Decision
Sunset Associates v. Strang
-
- Subscription Required
Monday, February 25, 2013
A failure to furnish a builder with timely notice about alleged defects can violate a warranty.
Decision
Makuch v. Stephen Pontiac-Cadillac Inc.
-
- Subscription Required
Monday, January 14, 2013
When ruling on the $50,000 jurisdictional threshold in a Magnuson Moss Warranty Act action, a court may include punitive damages, if punitives are available under applicable state law.
Decision
Connecticut Law Tribune
-
- Subscription Required
Monday, January 14, 2013
No private cause of action exists for an alleged violation of 15 United States Code §1681s-2(a) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Decision
Spatta v. American Classic Cars LLC
-
- Subscription Required
Monday, January 14, 2013
A court can award damages in the form of rescission and restitution to a consumer who alleges that the defendants violated the Connecticut Lemon Law.
Decision
E and M Custom Homes, LLC v. Negron
-
- Subscription Required
Monday, January 7, 2013
The determination of whether a party has suffered an ascertainable loss due to a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §42-110a, is not based on whether the party can recover damages for a loss, but rather on establishing whether a loss has occurred; the term loss has a broader meaning than the term damages.
News
Potential Class Action Targets Dental Practice
-
- Subscription Required
Friday, November 2, 2012 | by JAY STAPLETON
A Greenwich lawyer who started his own practice almost two years ago has filed a possible class action lawsuit against a company that operates 350 dental offices across the country.
Decision
Bailey v. Lanou
-
- Subscription Required
Monday, October 22, 2012
Once a violation of the Home Improvement Act, C.G.S. §20-418 has been established, to recover damages under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §42-110a, the Supreme Court in its 2009 decision in Hees v. Burke Construction, Inc., explained that " the homeowners still must prove that they have suffered an injury or actual loss."
Decision
Baker v. Brodeur
-
- Subscription Required
Monday, September 10, 2012
Only claims that arise out of the entrepreneurial aspects of accounting can violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Decision
Aleman v. Ellington Auto Sales & Financing LLC
-
- Subscription Required
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Truth In Lending Act does not require that the terms of a separate transaction to pay back a note be included in the retail installment sales contract for the purchase of a motor vehicle.
