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?