USA Consumer Law Questions - Assignment Example

USA Consumer Law Questions Customer Inserts His/her Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 02, 08, 2010 Question 1 The case of Casey consumer is one case whereby the she was sold a house in Texas without full disclosure of the house history. The owner of the house, under the sale circumstances deceived Casey into buying the house. As a result of the sale, Casey was not happy and felt like she was not furnished with full information regarding the house sold to her. Under this case Casey has rights against the seller of the house based on these articles of the deceptive trade practices act. Casey has a right to claim for a refund and any damages incurred during her stay at the house she bought, this is because of the laws of trade in Texas which support her claim (Horvath, 23). The Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) explain that any person who represents or uses misleading information, in relation to a price reduction of a particular good or service is liable to any rights served against him/her for compensation. These laws according to the DPCA show that the seller of the house deceived Casey into buying the house leading to her suffering which eventually cost her when she lost her job. For instance section 4 of the DTPA, make clear that if any person represent a good or service purporting that it satisfies certain qualities and yet if does not meet those requirements, that person is liable to compensation sought against him/her. Another reason that Casey could use to claim rights against the seller of the house, include section 4 part xxi of the DTPA which clarifies that any person who engages in a deceptive or fraudulent act; which creates confusion or misunderstanding, it amounts to unfair practice. Thus in this case the house’s seller engaged in unfair practice against the customer (Casey) and therefore Casey has a right to claim for costs incurred and damages. The house’s seller did not fully explain the circumstances that lead to him selling the house at a low price, thus he had the intent to create confusion for the house to be sold (Alderman, 69). Casey can make a claim against the house seller to be refunded all the amounts she paid for the house. Casey’s case against the house seller due to the reason that when the house’s seller was advertising the house he did not furnish full information regarding the house and the house was advertised to look as if it had no problems. This actions are against the laundry list’ provided by the DTPA which states all infringement that can be regarded as deceptive to the consumer and a violation of the law (Horvath, 20). Casey was deceived into buying the house and using these reasons she can claim for a refund on all the money she paid for the house and to be compensated for losing her job due to the house which was sold. The DTPA is meant to protect consumers against deception or fraudulent sale of property or goods by use of pretence and in the case of Casey, she was sold a house in which a person had been murdered and the seller of the house intentionally withheld this crucial information. The acts of the seller lead to Casey leaving in a house which caused constant torture to her and lead to her losing her job. Casey could claim for compensation and she might prevail against the house’s seller and if she prevails she could win claims against the seller, the courts could prevail upon the seller to compensate Casey for all cost she incurred in her suit, paying for the house and any other damages resulting from living in the house bought. Casey could claim her right to compensation since there is evidence that she has incurred a loss since she moved into the new house located in Texas. The DTPA laws are applicable in Texas and they cover on cases involving land and property (Carter, 35). In this scenario Casey suffered economic due to emotional strain she had been undergoing through, these problems were caused by living in the house which she bought form the seller. In her claim Casey could win the case and be awarded damages which cover her lawsuit, the house bought and earnings lost since she was fired from her job. In summary the Texas DTPA, are laws which are primarily used to guide consumers against deceptive practices when they are purchasing or seeking services. Consumer deception has been on the rise lately but with laws such as the DTPA, consumers and also businesses are protected from practices that might cost them through purchase or use of the said good or service. Question 2 When we examine this case we have to look at the scenario from the consumer’s and seller reasoning to understand the rights of the seller. The transaction that took place between Casey and the two stores is guided under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which looks at the person liable in case of non-payment of goods bought on credit. In connection to the case of Casey buying a TV and Oven under an agreement and failing to pay, the debt collectors who were sent to collect the debt, used unfair practices in their pursuit of the debt. Thus Casey has claims against the debt collectors for their actions and she can claim for damages using Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to the FDCPA, unfair practices are against the laws and it stipulates that a debt collector cannot use unfair means in his/her practice while collecting debts (Abdul-Rahman, 13). In this scenario we see that the debt collectors RGM and GBH firms using threats to scare Casey into paying the debts she owed the stores. The FDCPA has a guide which should be used by debt collectors. This guide explains that a debt collector on request from his client should inform the debtor through a letter of the impending action they are about to take due to non-payment of debts owed. In this case we see that the debt collectors did in fact send letters to Casey but they also used threats in their actions, this is against the laws since the debtor is usually given 30 days to respond to the letter (Abdul-Rahman, 22). The law according to FDCPA also gives the right the debtor to respond to the letter admitting to the debt and non-response does not mean that the debtor admits to any debts being owed. Casey does a have right against the debt collectors in that they did not follow the FDCPA laws. Since the debt collectors should have waited for her to respond to their letter and by them using threats made her lose concentration on her job. Casey in this case has what it takes to claim compensation on time and money lost when she closed her business. Moreover the FDCPA explains that a debt collector cannot claim against a property which was not filed as collateral and this case the debt collectors threatened to sell her house if she doesn’t pay the debts owed (Campbell, 24). This is against the laws and Casey has right to claim for compensation due to the fact that the house she lives in was not listed as collateral for the goods she bought and the house is worth more that the goods she bought. Finally the debt collectors did not follow the right procedure in claiming debt owed by Casey. Casey’s lawyers could argue that according to FDCPA, a debt collector should wait for five days after notifying the debtor of existence of the debt a written statement; containing the amount of debt, name of creditor to whom debt is owed to and statement assuming the debt is valid unless the debtor files a suit disputing the validity of the claim. This procedure was flouted and Casey has a claim against the debt collectors for compensation against business lost during her absence from her business in consequence to the actions of the debt collectors. Casey might win the law suit owing to the circumstances in which the debt collectors collected the debt owed to the stores. In this case we see that the debt collectors threatened her father and mother. Their actions were against the FDCPA which prohibits debt collectors to involve third parties or persons who are not cosigner to the debt. As a result their actions were an embarrassment to Casey and caused emotional pain to her, due to these activities Casey has a right to file for a suit to demand compensation for damages caused to her. By contacting Casey’s parents, the debt collectors violated a law which prohibits debt collectors to disclose private information to third parties; the FDCPA only permits this kind of information to be available to the debtor’s lawyers, debtor, creditor, creditor’s lawyer and any cosigner(s) of the debt (Kline, 42). These violations led to a great embarrassment and emotional discomfort to Casey and for these she has a right to be compensated. As it concerns compensation, the FDCPA protects consumers and they usually award compensation to consumers in a court of law up to amounts equaling the cost of the suit, damages incurred as a result of unlawful repossession or acts of the debt collectors. Another method of compensation is conducted by tripling all amounts incurred by the debtor or complaint in filing the suit and to the extent of damages incurred in the process of debt recollection by debt collectors. In this suit, I strongly believe that Casey will win the case and all damages incurred by her will have to be paid by the debt collectors due to unlawful action against Casey. Question 3 The case of Bob and Mary’s suit against Toyota Corporation is unique and their claims and circumstances leading to those claims, must be examined for due course of justice to be done. In this case we see that Mary who bought a new Toyota had problems with the accelerator pedal which led to her car crashing and she was hospitalized with major injuries. Mary wants to file a lawsuit against Toyota Corporation and reasons that would make her win her lawsuit is the laws which guide on sale contracts, in her case the Universal Commercial Code (UCC) laws would be appropriate. Mary’s lawyers could argue that the section 2 of the UCC protects the buyer of a good against false or goods which do not meet the standards. In this case the Car she bought from Toyota was faulty and caused injuries to her thus she has all the rights to claim for compensation against Toyota Corporation (Campbell, 19). Under UCC sections 2-313 and 2-31, it clarifies on warranties of certain purchased goods, this sections talk of warranties guaranteed against certain goods. Mary bought a car which undergone a lot of safety tests and had been proven to be safe thus in this case when Toyota Corporation sold the car they understood that the car they sold was good for use and thus due to what happened to Mary they should compensate her for all the damage she has undergone. Under section 2-508 of the UCC, a buyer of any good above can notify the seller of the good on the non-conformance of the good upon which the seller finds reasonable grounds. In this case Mary upon being injured in the car accident she could notify Toyota Corporation of the non-conformance of the 2010 Toyota vehicle and claim a refund for the money she paid as stipulated in section 8. Another valid reason that Mary could use to claim for compensation is that section 2-510 of the UCC, clarifies that when a tender or good fails to meet its purpose then the rejection and loss lies on the seller. Using this section Mary’s lawyer could argue that Mary rejected the vehicle and that she should be compensated for all loss and damages incurred on using the Toyota 2010 vehicle (Litowitz, 67). The same section can be applied by Bob who rejected the vehicle once he learnt of Mary accident, Bob should be compensated the full amount by Toyota since he rejected the car and the law gives him a right to reject until acceptance or a solution is reached. When we look at Bob’s case, we are made to understand that Bob returned his car back to Toyota upon discovery of non-conformity to certain functions. The return of the vehicle netted him an amount $ 2,000 less than expected. Section 2-608 of the UCC, states that if the rejection of a certain good due to non-conformity that impairs the price of the good the buyer has a right for rejection. As a result Bob has a right to demand for the rightful price of the vehicle to be awarded to him since there was non-conformity of the vehicle to certain conditions. Under the laws of consumer protection Mary has a reason to file for compensation against Toyota Corporation for the sale of a defective Toyota vehicle. In this case we see that the use of the vehicle lead to Mary suffering some injuries due to a fault in the vehicle that which caused the accident. As a result of the accident Mary suffered emotional pain which has affected her work schedule and she lost her computer in the accident. All the damages and loss incurred by a consumer should be compensated under the consumer protection rights and Mary’s case Toyota Corporation should pay her for the lost computer, all costs related to the accident and they should even pay for psychiatric care in order for her to recover the effects of the horrific accident. The UCC and other laws such as the DTPA are supposed to protect the consumer from loss incurred in the use or procurement of certain services. In the case of Mary and Bob, they both purchased vehicles which were later found to have very serious problems with the accelerator pad. The faults in the vehicle led to very serious injuries to Mary and Bob sold his vehicle but was paid $2,000 less what he expected (Alderman, 74). Their claims are very valid and within the laws and if they win the lawsuit, Mary could be compensated all losses incurred due to the accident and cost of her legal suit, while in Bob’s case he could only be compensated the costs of his suit and in additional the $ 2,000 which he demanded from the sale of his vehicle. In conclusion laws such as the UCC are meant to protect consumers against unlawful or deceptive practices of the producer. For instance the case of Mary and Bob, they have a claim against Toyota Corporation who produced vehicles with faulty accelerator pads, such incidents usually lead to accidents which cause injuries or even death to innocent car owners and passengers (Litowitz, 70). Thus laws have been put in place to guide against and provide direction when such cases arise, in their claim I strongly urge Mary and Bob to file this case against Toyota Corporation. In my opinion Toyota Corporation should compensate Mary for the lawsuit, injuries caused by the accident and all miscellaneous cost in regard to the car accident the same should apply to Bob only to the extent of his claims. Multiple choice questions 1. C- Economy. 2. B- Limits tort claims to only economic loss. 3. C- The transaction must be in the consumer's state or within 100 miles of his home. 4. D- 4 years. 5. D- Stocks and bonds 6. A-Let the buyers beware. 7. B- 50,000. 8. C- American. 9. C- Not call a consumer once the consumer tells the debt collector if an employer doesn’t allow. 10. E- None of the above. 11. A- Owes more than her house is worth. 12. D- Disregard of the law 13. D- 60 days. 14. B-Mediation. 15. A- Damages for mental anguish 16. D- Visa collecting its own debt 17. C- Damages for mental anguish 18. B- 30. 19. E- All of the above 20. A- Net worth of the defendant True/False Questions 1. True- the Texas DTPA recognize the son as a consumer, this is because this law recognizes gifts as goods. Therefore the son becomes a consumer in that his rights to the goods are regarded as like those of a consumer or purchaser of the goods. 2. True – Credit report reviews are important since they help to identify expenditure done against your credit card. Identity theft can only occurs in situations where you don’t review your credit report and thus through review you are able to know suspicious expenditure and report such cases to your credit card company. 3. False- it is not true that jury in America decide cases on issues based on fact and law, this is because cases dealing on fact and law are directly dealt by the courts of law. The jury in America usually decide cases based on social issues or surrounding moral issues in the society. 4. True- when we look at the proximate cause standard there has to be evidence that a certain occurrence occurred thus there has to be witnesses to prove your case. While in cause standard a person can recover all the damages using verified documents. 5. True- the use of credit card is one of the most commonly used methods in online trade. The use of credit card is one of the safest means of using buying goods online, this is because Credit cards have protective means of which protect against fraud. 6. True- Excessive filing of costs may invalidate the arbitrate clause, this due to the fact that large filed costs show the petitioner’s intent to profit excessively from the suit. There has to be evidence proving that the petitioner incurred those costs; otherwise all costs filed might amount to excessive costs. 7. True – the Strict Products Liability, 402A, does apply to consumers or users of a product. This is because this law guides on products and their acquisition and use by the consumer. This law does not touch on the seller or producer. 8. True- most credit card companies are required by law to issue a free credit report to their customers. There is however a difference that is mainly based on different companies and the way that they operate with their customers. 9. True-the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act allows for business to be regarded as consumers when the buy goods from other people or suppliers. Thus businesses can also be classified as consumers. 10. False-the term UDAP is an acronym for Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices. It stands for laws which protect consumers against unfair practices and does not stand for “You don’t Attack Your Professors”. Read More