Eliason v. Harrison (2018)

Citation: Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
Parent Document: Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2018-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10026732/eliason-v-harrison/ ↗

Full Text

1,168 chars

Quite simply, a CPA violation does not per se make all gains to the seller ill-gotten. If
one sold a car with a stereo that was of a lower-quality than represented, that does not make the
entire price paid for the car ill-gotten. Rather, the consumer can be made whole through either
damages in the amount the stereo was over-valued, or by undoing the transaction. The CPA “is
clearly remedial in nature,” State v. Custom Pools, 150 Vt. 533, 536 (1988), yet requiring a seller
to return gains that were not ill-gotten would be punitive. The CPA however provides for
punishment through civil penalty, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, while the relevant
Burlington City Ordinances also establish criminal penalties. See BCO 18-31(a)(2) (providing
that anyone found to have violated Article II, which encompasses BCO 18-15, 18-16, and 18-18,
is deemed to have committed a criminal offense punishable by a fine of $200-$500 and/or by
imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days, with each days’ failure to comply constituting a
separate offense). Requiring a seller to return only ill-gotten gains deters future misconduct while
maintaining fairness to sellers.

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text