Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") is the name for California Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq. [1] The CLRA declares unlawful several "methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer". [2]
California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court created a two-part test for the application of the state action immunity doctrine that it had previously developed in Parker v. Brown.
The plaintiff, Dr. Ira Gore, bought a new BMW, and later discovered that the vehicle had been repainted before he bought it. Defendant BMW of North America revealed that their policy was to sell damaged cars as new if the damage could be fixed for less than 3% of the cost of the car. Dr. Gore sued, and an Alabama jury awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages (lost value of the car) and $4 ...
(Reuters) -A Los Angeles federal jury on Tuesday found disbarred California attorney Tom Girardi guilty of four counts of wire fraud after U.S. prosecutors accused him of stealing $15 million in ...
The former owner of a Fresno-based trucking company is facing charges of under-reporting more than $2 million in payroll to avoid workers’ compensation costs, regulators said Wednesday.
California Civil Code § 3369, enacted in 1872, was California's early unfair competition statute. It "addressed only the availability of civil remedies for business violations in cases of penalty, forfeiture, and criminal violation." [3] A 1933 amendment expanded the law to prohibit "any person [from] performing an act of unfair competition."
A former technology executive has pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud involving a scheme to artificially inflate the share price of photo and video distributor , federal officials said Friday.
Conceptually, fraudulent trading is similar to a fraudulent conveyance, [2] but the key distinction is that an application to have a transaction set aside as a fraudulent conveyance usually requires to the third party beneficiary to disgorge the benefit of the conveyance to undo the loss to the company's assets, whereas a court order in ...