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
850 charsA consumer who sustains a claim under 9 V.S.A. § 2453 may recover the amount of his damages or the value of the consideration given, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and exemplary damages. 9 V.S.A. § 2461(b). Our Supreme Court has previously characterized 9 V.S.A. § 2461(b) as “directed toward providing an award of equitable relief and damages or restitution[.]” Gramatan Home Inv’rs Corp. v. Starling, 143 Vt. 527, 534 (1983) (emphasis added). This characterization aside, the court has not expressly addressed whether the “consideration” option simply grants the consumer “an alternative form of compensatory relief in the nature of restitution” or is “a civil penalty untethered from the normal restitutionary requirement of restoring the parties to their original status.” Vastano v. Killington Valley Real Estate, 2010 VT 12, ¶ 5, 187 Vt. 628.1