In the Supreme Judicial Court case of Darviris v. Petros, 442 Mass. 274 (2004),
limitations on consumer protection claims under G.L. c. 93A in medical malpractice cases were limited by the court.
«In the
consumer's favour it is a big victory because the court found there is a limitation period and the transponder agreement he signed does not apply to a consumer as it's protected by the Consumer Protection Act, but when the court went on to find the limitation period in his case starts on the date he was placed in plate denial, then the limitation period has not run,»
consumer's favour it is a big victory because the court found there is a
limitation period and the transponder agreement he signed does not apply to a
consumer as it's protected by the Consumer Protection Act, but when the court went on to find the limitation period in his case starts on the date he was placed in plate denial, then the limitation period has not run,»
consumer as it's protected by the
Consumer Protection Act, but when the court went on to find the limitation period in his case starts on the date he was placed in plate denial, then the limitation period has not run,»
Consumer Protection Act, but when the court went
on to find the
limitation period in his case starts
on the date he was placed in plate denial, then the
limitation period has not run,» he says.
Combining the disappointing in De Wolf v. Bell ExpressVu, provincial regulation
on payday lending that has led to higher interest rates than those allowed by the usury provisions in the Criminal Code and the
limitations of
consumer class actions against late payment practices, it seems that
consumers have even less
protection from exploitative credit arrangements today.
In Young v. Whidbey Island Board of REALTORS ®, the Supreme Court of Washington affirmed a superior court holding that
limitations on MLS access based
on membership in a local Board of REALTORS ® violated the Unfair Business Practices -
Consumer Protection Act (UBP - CPA).