State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (1985)

Citation: State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (1985)
Parent Document: State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (1985)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 1985-01-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1172955/state-v-schwab/ ↗

Full Text

1,257 chars

Third, the 1973 Legislature first considered, then rejected, an amendment to the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 which by its express terms would have provided that violations "of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed, for the purposes of application of the Consumer *552 Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, to constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice or an unfair method of competition in the conduct of trade or commerce."[30] This amendment was considered on the floor of the Senate. Before the amendment was voted down, one senator questioned whether the Attorney General's office had sufficient staff to handle such a job, and another senator questioned the wisdom of opening the door to treble damages under the Consumer Protection Act when a double damages amendment had just been voted down.[31] This demonstrates that the Senate was well aware of the effect of what it was doing when it turned down the amendment extending the Consumer Protection Act to violations of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973; so too does the fact that this same Legislature enacted legislation expressly applying the Consumer Protection Act to other activities such as charitable solicitations[32] and chain distribution schemes.[33]

Other Sections in This Document (177)

Full Text