Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Citation
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Parent Document
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2018-06-26
Other Sections in This Document (41)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
Full Text
511 charsYet, because Terry, L’Esperance, and Bisson involved substantive code violations, they can be read to stand for the proposition that regulatory non-compliance may, but need not necessarily, violate the Consumer Protection Act. Just as de minimis housing code violations standing alone do not breach the warranty of habitability under the Residential Rental Agreements Act, see Hilder v. St. Peter, 144 Vt. 150, 160 (1984), it is not necessarily the case that any regulatory non-compliance would violate the CPA.