It’s nice once in awhile when a court understands how the real world works. It’s also nice when a court holds a statute means what it says. The Court of Appeal recently did both those things in Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc. (August 27, 2015) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Fourth Appellate Dist. G050484). This was a case involving California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 and following, (often known as the “CLRA”).
First, some background: Section 1790 of the CLRA declares some 23 practices in the sale of goods or services to be “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The itemized proscribed practices are quite broad, including “Passing off goods or services as those of another,” “Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another,” or “Inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract.” The 23 practices are sufficiently broad that consumer plaintiff attorneys can often find one that matches just about anything their clients are unhappy about.
More after the jump.