The UCC and the Consumer Protection Act - Assignment Example

U.S Consumer Law Questions Customer Inserts His/her Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 10, 08, 2010 Part I A Multiple choice questions 1. C- Economy. 2. A- Requires claims for pure economic loss must be brought n contract not tort. 3. C- The transaction must be in the consumer's state or within 100 miles of his home. 4. D- 4 years. 5. C- 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 explaining that the employer doesn’t allow certain calls. 10. A- Stocks and bonds 11. A- Owes more than her house is worth. 12. D- Disregard of the law 13. B- 30 days. 14. A-Arbitration. 15. E- More than one of the above 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 Part B True/False Questions 1. True- the son becomes a consumer once the good he has been bought for comes into his possession. This is because the Texas DTPA recognizes presents as goods and therefore the son qualifies as a consumer. 2. True – credit card users must review their cards in order to track expenditure. Through tracking of the credit one is able to know if his/her card has been hacked into and as a result the client can report this to the credit card company. 3. False- in the U.S. the jury usually handles cases that deal with societal issues and cases based on facts are left to be decided by judges as they only need to interpret the law. 4. True- when using the standard cause it shows that there is documentary evidence and thus damages are easily awarded while under proximate cause there is no documentary evidence but damages are awarded according to probability. 5. True- online buying and selling is normally conducted through the use of credit cards because of security measures with the use of the cards. Credit cards have encrypted security measures which make them safe for use in online trade. 6. True- When arbitration is being decided, excessive filing for damages may lead to one suit being exaggerated. This is because arbitration is meant to return a person to the state he was before occurrence of incident leading to damages; arbitration is not meant to benefit the petitioner. 7. False– Strict Products Liability, 402A is a law section which guides the sale of goods by producers. This law guides on the liabilities that a producer might suffer in case of certain occurrences occur. 8. True- this is because consumer laws are there to ensure that these credit companies submit reports to existing customers. They are meant to ensure the consumer is not exploited by his credit card company. 9. True-this is because the Texas’ DTPA are laws which guide on consumers and producers; businesses can also be classified as consumers in the essence that they also buy goods from other suppliers. 10. False-due to the fact that UDAP stands for Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices. Which are laws meant to guide consumers and it doesn’t stand for "You Don't Attack Professors". Part II Question A Many customers and people in the United States are deceived by sellers and producers of goods. This has caused a lot of problems to consumers especially in Texas where lawmakers came up with laws to protect consumers from deceit. As a result consumer law known as Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) was introduced. The DTPA contains a list of practices which are considered as deceptive and unfair to consumers; this list is known as the ‘laundry list’. Casey’s case can be categorized under the DTPA, since the act of buying the house was conducted in Texas and the case involved a violation of the DTPA law. In this case we see that Casey bought a house from a seller at the price of $ 300,000 which was far much lower than houses of the same type. The seller did not reveal all information concerning the house and used deceptive means to sell the house to Casey; using the DTPA Casey could claims rights against the seller due to the following reasons (Horvath, 2009). Under the DTPA, Casey can claim that her rights were infringed since the seller withheld crucial information concerning the house from her. The DTPA prohibits a seller from non-disclosure of information from the buyer and in this case the seller withheld information that his mother had been murdered inside the house she sold to Casey. This offence falls within the laundry list provided in the DTPA and thus Casey is liable for compensation from the seller. Casey could argue that according to the DTPA act any person who presents or uses false information in relation to price reduction of a particular good or service will be liable to any rights served against him/her for compensation. In Casey’s scenario we see that the seller advertised the house as being in perfect condition yet this did not justify the low price used to sell the house, therefore his activities were against the DTPA and Casey should be compensated up to the full price she purchased the house with. Within the DTPA, it is against the laws for a seller or producer to use deceptive means in conducting business. In this case, the seller being aware of Casey’s lacklustre English used his Texan accent and knowledge to deceive Casey into buying the house. His actions were intentional and misleading in total contravention of the DTPA, thus Casey has a right to claim for damages and compensation against the seller of the house (Horvath, 2009). The actions of the seller of the house led to Casey buying and leaving in the house she bought. As a consequence of living in this house Casey developed stress and distraction in connection to the seller mother being brutally murdered in the house. These events led to Casey losing her job and thus making her suffer economic loss; owing to this, Casey has a right to claim for damages against the seller. The seller who sold Casey the house did not disclose full information concerning the house and as result upon revelation of what had occurred in the house; Casey tried to sell the house but she found that house value had dropped and worth far less than what she had paid. Under the DTPA, the actions of the seller amount to deception and thus backed by the Texas Commercial code the buyer is liable for compensation from the seller. The DTPA explains that representation of goods or property as original yet they are not amounts to a violation. In this scenario we see that the seller of the house represented the house as being in good condition however somebody had been brutally murdered in the house. This deception led to a considerable loss to Casey and owing to this she has a right to claim for compensation against the house’s seller. Casey could claim her rights using section 4 of the DTPA, in that this section talks of persons who engage in fraudulent or deceptive act; which creates confusion or misunderstanding amounts to unfair practice. Thus in this case the house seller engaged in practice against Casey with the intent of deceiving her. Consequently Casey has a right to claim for compensation against statutory damages in connection with the purchase of the house since these problems did not exist before the house was purchased. The DTPA usually awards clients who win their lawsuit damages up to three times against all statutory damages the client claims. In this case Casey could claim compensation on; the house she bought but now she not interested in, legal and court costs and economic loss suffered when she lost her job. All these costs and damages could be awarded by a court of law against the seller of the house. DTPA was enacted to guide the rights of consumers against practices that amount to deception since this could cause potential problems to consumers and thus the laws recognize the customer’s claims that must be respected. In conclusion the DTPA could be used in this case in that Mary was a victim of deception to a house seller who used deception and tricks in disposing the house. The house’s seller used Mary’s weakness such as poor understanding of English and the fact that Mary was a foreigner she had no news of what had happened in the seller’s house. In addition to this he advertised the house in a manner that could deceive and attract potential client to buy his house. All these practice she conducted were against consumer laws and therefore he should be made liable to all demands and claims of compensation made by Mary. Question B In this case we look at Casey consumer, a restaurant owner who purchased goods from two buyers but later failed to pay for the goods. In relation to her failure to repay for the goods, debt collection firms were sent to recover money from her; but the debt collection firms used unconventional methods in their pursuit for the debt. Casey has contacted a law firm to intervene in her case and claim any rights she has according to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Debt collection firms have a duty to collect non-performing debts as stipulated and regulated by law. In America there has a rising incident of debt collection firms using rogue methods in collection of debts and in the end victimizing debtors. This trend is worrying and consequently law enforcement agencies have enforced laws to guide against these, laws such as the FDPCA have been put in place to tackle these problems (Horvath, 2009). Casey’s lawyers could argue that debt collection firms; RGM and GBH violate the law in the process of collecting their client’s debt from Casey. The FDCPA states that a debt collector cannot use deceit or misrepresentation in debt collection; in this case we are able to see that RGM threatened to send a sheriff to jail Casey if she failed to pay the debt in 30 days. This is against the laws in that a judge or courts of law have legal grounds to send a debtor to jail for failure to pay her debts but a debt collector has no rights. The FDCPA clarifies that a debt collector cannot use unreasonable practices in the act of colleting debts. But RGM and GBH use threats and scare tactics against Casey in order to recover the debt from her, their actions were unlawful and therefore Casey has a right to claim for compensation. Casey could claim for damages due to fact that by notifying her parents, the debt collection firms painted a bad picture of her causing emotional pain. The act of debt collection involves a debt collection firm writing a letter to the debtor informing him/her of their intended action within a period of 30 days. The debtor has an opportunity to reply to the letter admitting to owing debt; but in this case the debt collectors did not wait for Casey’s response but went ahead to threaten her in total violation of the fair debt collection practices. Owing to this reason Casey’s lawyers could argue that she be compensated for unfair practices conducted by the debt collectors causing her anguish. Casey has every right to demand for damages in a lawsuit this is because the FDCPA recognizes that any violation against the Fair Debt Collection practices are fined $ 1,000 or more. Moreover the debt collectors conducted several violations in their practice and Casey could win damages filed against the debt collectors. Debt collectors RGM and GBH used offensive language when they contacted Casey’s parents about her debts. They also contacted her parents who are no party to debt owed by Casey, thus this is a violation against the FDCPA which prohibits debt collection firms from disclosing one’s debts to people not party to the debts. In her lawsuit Casey’s lawyers could argue that the FDCPA protect debtors against claims by debt collectors on property of goods not filed as collateral of good bought. In this case the debt collector GBH threatened to sale Casey’s house against debt owed, this was a violation that Casey could claim damages against. In addition the FDCPA clarifies that a debt collector cannot claim more than debt owed by the debtor, thus GBH claim of selling Casey’s house amount to asking more than is owed by the debtor. The actions of the debt collectors RGM and GBH were unlawful in that they used abusive language against her when she contacted them. They also threatened to take action which could be undertaken legally and their actions led to Casey closing her restaurant due to mental anguish caused by the debt collectors. Such violations conducted by RGM and GBH were against the FDCPA and thus they are liable to economic and other damages claimed by Casey in her lawsuit. Lastly as it concerns damages and compensation, the FDCPA stipulates that any violation against this law carries a fine of $ 1,000 and a debtor doesn’t have to prove actual damages in the case that a debt collector is found to have violated the FDCPA. The debtor can additionally claim for compensation on legal and courts costs incurred in a suit, but the debt collector can escape being fined if the violations were not intended. If a debtor loses a lawsuit due to the suit being filed in bad faith, he/she will pay the costs of the suit to the debt collector. In Summary, Casey could win the lawsuit against the debt collectors since they conducted violations against the FDCPA; if she wins the suit the debt collectors will be forced to pay for her lawyer’s fees, economic costs due to lost business and additional damages such as mental anguish. The enactment and enforcement of the FDCPA has led to better practices in debt collection practices by debt collection firms; while the enforcement of this law has protected debtors and consumers from unlawful practices of debt collectors. Question C Car accidents result in deaths of many people around the globe and in the major cause of their occurrences is due to negligence or car manufacturer faults. These accidents could be prevented through proper driver education and regulating car manufacturers in the car production or by penalizing faulty designs. In this case we see that Mary who bought a new Toyota 2010 was involved in a horrific car crash due to accelerator pedal problems with the vehicle. The horrific crash led Mary being hospitalized for suffering serious head injuries and thus she missed two weeks of work. The accident led her brother to sell his 2010 Toyota car which he was paid $ 2,000 less than what he was intended to receive. In the case of Bob and Mary, they have a claim against Toyota Corporation due to the different sections of the law that support their rights. The Toyota Corporation should be liable to the loss suffered by Mary as provided in section 2 of the UCC (Universal commercial code) and the Consumer Protection Act. The two laws are there to protect consumers against producers or seller of goods. Mary’s lawyers could argue that section 2 -508 of the UCC, state that if a good does not conform to its qualities then the buyer has a right to notify the seller of the non-conformance. In this case we see that the car Mary bought did not conform to its standards thus she has a claim against Toyota Corporation; her claim can be validated by the fact non-conformance of the vehicle led to the accident in which Mary was injured. Section 2 of the UCC and the Consumer Protection Act protects consumers against faulty goods produced by manufacturers. In this case we that Mary purchased a Toyota 2010 car which later crashed in the process hurting her, these laws are meant to return the customer to the level he was before purchasing a faulty good. As a result of this Toyota Corporation is liable to pay Mary damages she incurred during the accident, hospital costs and other additional costs. When we look at section 2 of the UCC, it clarifies that warranties on goods must be uphold and in case the good or property is damaged the buyer has a right to be refunded or redeemed with the good. In Mary’s case the car she bought had been sold on guarantee that it was working perfectly and when the car crashed it went against this promise and thus Toyota Corporation is liable to the compensate Mary for all the damages she suffered (Allee, 2006). Looking at Bob’s case, his lawyers could argue that section 2-608 of the UCC clarifies that if the rejection of a good due to non-conformance impairs the price of the good, the buyer ahs a right to reject the good. In this case Bob rejected the Toyota 2010 car due to the fact that the car had accelerator pedal problems and therefore the law gives the right for bob to reject the car. Bob’s rejection being within the law, Toyota Corporation is liable to the $ 2,000 demand from Bob. Another argument that the lawyers of Mary and Bob, could argue is that section 2 of the UCC protects the clients and consumers against faulty goods and goods which cause harm to the consumer. In this case we see that Mary’s use of the car lead to serious injuries and Bob feared what might happen to him. Thus in relation to these happenings both Bob and Mary are liable to be compensated for all the damages that happened to them. Section 2 of the UCC guides on the sale agreements and arrangements between buyers and sellers of merchandise, in the case of Mary we see that the Toyota 2010 car she bought had accelerator pedal problems which lead to her being involved in an accident. Thus as a result of the accident Mary incurred medical expenses, lost two weeks of work, damaged her computer and she also experienced emotional strain caused by the accident. Bob on the other hand lost $ 2,000 worth of his vehicle due to the accelerator pedal problems his vehicle had. In both their cases Mary and Bob are not at fault since they purchased a vehicle that was later diagnosed with serious problems and thus the only recourse is for Toyota Corporation to compensate them for their loss. In summary, consumer laws such as the UCC and the Consumer Protection Act were enacted to protect the consumer from deceitful practices or faulty goods from producers. In this case we see two victims of such un-avoided problem of faulty good on the producer’s side. In cases of violations against consumers arise these laws were consulted by lawyers to ensure that justice is served to everybody in equal measure. In my opinion Mary and Bob will win their case if they filed a lawsuit against Toyota Corporation. References Allee, J. S. (2006). Annual Review of Developments in Business and Corporate Litigation. Washington DC, WA: American Bar Association. Horvath, A. & Villafranco J. (2009). Consumer protection law developments. Boston, MA: American Bar Association. Read More