-> RT> PETER BRADIE wrote in a message to STEVEN HORN:
-> 
-> RT> SH> Is deceptive trade practices an area of law created by the
states
-> RT> SH> or Congress? I'm not sure that works for business transactions
here.
-> 
-> RT>  PB> The federal Magnusson-Moss Act is the action for breach of
-> RT>  PB> warranty.
-> 
-> RT> What is that law about,  basically?
-> 
-> In a nutshell, it says that if someone (could be a business...) warrants
that 
-> the sold goods have certain characteristics, and those characteristics
are 
-> the basis of the sale, and the goods are found to not have those 
-> characteristics, then the buyer can sue the seller for breach of those
warranties and, if the 
-> seller knew that those characteristics weren't there when they said they 
-> were, then the damages may be tripled.  It also allows for consequential
damages 
-> and recovery of attorney fees.
-> 
-> Now that's kind of important, because most breaches of contract do not
allow 
-> for consequential damages unless the breacher knew that those damages
would 
-> proximately flow from the breach.  Old English case, Hadley v.
Baxendale, from 
-> 1854 limits consequential damages for breach of contract, and that's
still good 
-> law in most juridictions.  The US follows the old English Common Law
rule 
-> that each side is responsible for their attorney fees, unless otherwise
granted 
-> by statute.  Magnusson-Moss is one of the statutory exceptions.
-> 
-> ---
->  þ MM 1.1 #0381 þ Vote for Cthulhu! Why support the Lesser of Evils?


In other words, "suitability for a particular purpose".  It would seem
that the sole benefit of the act is to provide those consequential damages
as the lack of suitability for the specified purpose would give rise to
a remedy.......albeit one withoout consequential damages

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5