Washington DC Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Archive for July, 2007

The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act Has Broad and Powerful Remedies Available to an Injured Party

Monday, July 23rd, 2007

The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act allows a victimized consumer to seek numerous forms of relief. An injured party may obtain damages three times the amount of what the actual damages are or they could get $1,500 for each violation, whichever is greater. Accordingly, if for instance, there was a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act that was ongoing or that was repeated, the term “each violation” might result in a $1,500 penalty per day that the act was violated. Alternatively, if there were significant damages, the law provides that those damages would be tripled. In addition, the law provides for the payment of attorney’s fees by the wrongdoer. Additionally, the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act permits the award of punitive damages, that is to say damages intended to punish the wrongdoer. The reason why these damages are permitted is because one of the purposes of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act is to encourage the best possible business practices and to deter bad business practices. In order to deter bad business practices, the District of Columbia permits damages intended to punish violators of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act to dissuade others from engaging in similar conduct. The law also permits somebody who was victimized by the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act to seek an injunction to stop the behavior that resulted in the violation from taking place again.

There are other remedies and relief available however, this is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Instead, it is recommended that you contact the lawyers at Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata, P.C. for assistance in the event you feel you may have been damaged and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act was violated.

by Ira Sherman, Esq.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Terms of Contracts or Leases Could Result in a Violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

It is a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act for a merchant to make or enforce totally unfair, or “unconscionable” terms or provisions in sales contracts or leases. Additionally, the failure to supply a copy of the sales or service contract, lease, or promissory note or similar document that shows an indebtedness which a consumer signs would be a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act.

Finally, examples of violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act include violations of other acts. So, if there was a use of a brand or hazardous product prohibited by the Federal Consumer Product Safety Act or if a person were to sell consumer goods in a manner or condition not consistent with what is warranted by District of Columbia law or federal law, such as the District of Columbia Consumer Layaway Plan or Rental Housing Locator Protection Act or Automobile Consumer Protection Act or Real Property Credit Line Deed of Trust Act, or any other provision of the District of Columbia municipal code, that would be applicable to consumers there could be a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act.

Accordingly, if you have any potential claim as a result of a consumer transaction, you should contact the offices of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. to assist you in determining whether you have a viable claim and what remedies and relief you would be entitled to.

by Ira Sherman, Esq.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Examples of Violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act

Tuesday, July 17th, 2007

Making a false statement or representation that repairs, servicing, alterations, or modifications of a product have been made and receiving money in exchange for that repair, servicing, alteration or modification when, in fact, the service was not provided is a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act.

Similarly, a statement that contains a misrepresentation of an important fact which the consumer relied upon or a failure to state an important fact which, by its omission, misleads the consumer is a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act.

Any statement that goods or services, or that the person providing the goods or services, are of a particular standard, quality, grade, status, to have a certain approval or certification that was not true when stated, would be a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act entitling the consumer to relief.

Making false or misleading representations concerning the reasons for, the existence of, or the amounts of price reductions or price comparisons of competitors or the merchant’s own price in the past or in the future violates the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act if the statements were false.

Falsely stating that services, replacements, or repairs are needed or falsely stating that goods or services are provided at the sale or discount prices for reasons that are untrue violates the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act.

Occasionally, people advertise goods or services without the intent to ever sell them at the price or under the conditions advertised or offered. If you have experienced any of these conditions, the individual who made that advertisement is subject to penalties under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act.

If you, a family member, or a loved one has experienced any of these conditions, please contact the Consumer Fraud attorneys at the law firm of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata, & Siegel, P.C.

by Ira Sherman, Esq.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Additional Examples of Violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act

Wednesday, July 11th, 2007

In the previous blog, examples of violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act were provided. The purpose of this blog is to give additional examples.

1) Individuals that represent that a person has a sponsorship, is approved, affiliated, or has a certain status which the person, in fact, does not have, violates the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act.

2) If an individual or entity claims to have a certification, a connection, or affiliation with another organization or entity or certifying or licensing organization and they do not have that license, approval, or status, that is a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, if you deal with someone who claims that they are “certified” or “licensed” to perform a certain service and they were not so licensed or approved, that is a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act.

3) If an individual represents that goods are original or new and, in fact, they have been altered, reconditioned or used in any way, there is a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Act.

4) If there is a misrepresentation of a material fact which has a tendency to mislead the consumer, or a person fails to state a material fact and that failure tends to mislead the consumer, the merchant, or seller of the product or service may be deemed to have violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act.

In the event you, a family member, or loved have experienced a violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act contact one of the Consumer Fraud attorneys at the law firm of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. for a free consultation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS).

Archives

Categories

Washington DC Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Archive for July, 2007

The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act Has Broad and Powerful Remedies Available to an Injured Party

Terms of Contracts or Leases Could Result in a Violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act

Examples of Violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act

Additional Examples of Violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act