Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home (page 6)

Tag Archives: Unfair Trade Practices

Securities – Unfair Trade Practices – ‘In or Affecting Commerce’ – Banks & Banking (access required)

DeGorter v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd. Even though plaintiff contends that “the business of the parties was to buy, develop, and market banks and bank services” and the underlying transaction was the purchase and sale of a bank, since plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim is based on allegations that defendants deceived him into buying securities, plaintiff’s claim is not based on activities “in or affecting commerce” within the meaning of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Banks & Banking – Fiduciary Duty – Fraud – Unfair Trade Practices – Real Property – Appraisal (access required)

Allran v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-15-0698, 14 pp.) (Calvin E. Murphy, J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Holding: The plaintiff-borrower alleges that the defendant-bank (1) failed to reveal that the land the borrower was buying was not worth the purchase price and (2) falsified closing documents; these allegations are not sufficient to show any fiduciary duty or fraud, but they are sufficient to state a claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices. The bank’s motion to dismiss is granted as to plaintiff’s claims of breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, fraud, and fraud in the inducement. The motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim.

Read More »

Contract – Damages – Nominal – Unfair Trade Practices – Civil Practice – Appeals – Commercial Sport Fishing Boat (access required)

D G. II, LLC v. Nix The trial court ruled before trial that plaintiff was entitled to the return of its $100,000 deposit; at trial, the jury was entitled to discount the testimony of witnesses who said the boat that defendants built for plaintiff was worth $250,000 more than the contract price. Although the jury should have awarded plaintiff nominal damages on its breach of contract claim, we will not remand for the sole purpose of an award of nominal damages.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Unfair Trade Practices – Labor & Employment – Other Businesses — Negligent Misrepresentation – Justifiable Reliance (access required)

Songwooyarn Trading Co. v. Sox Eleven, Inc. Even though defendant Ahn was plaintiff’s employee, since he interfered in the relationship between separate companies, his actions were “in commerce” within the meaning of G.S. Chapter 75. We affirm a $1,022,041 judgment for plaintiff.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Fraud – Unfair Trade Practices – Landlord/Tenant – Commercial Lease – Suitability for Use (access required)

Stoneworx, Inc. v. Robbins The defendant-landlord falsely represented that his building was suitable for the plaintiff-tenant's manufacturing business. The tenant justifiably relied on that misrepresentation and relocated its business, to its detriment. Even if the parties were in equal bargaining positions, the landlord's fraud is enough to prove unfair trade practices.

Read More »

Contract – Forum-Selection Clause – France – French Assignor – Unfair Trade Practices – Statute of Limitations – Aggravating Factors (access required)

Ada Liss Group Ltd. v. Sara Lee Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-03-1134, 16 pp.) (Wallace W. Dixon, USMJ) M.D.N.C. Holding: Defendant bases its breach-of-contract counterclaim on a contract plaintiff entered into with Playtex France. The Playtex France contract includes a ...

Read More »

Intellectual Property – Unfair Trade Practices – Passing Off – Cheaper Chinese Insulation – Less Effective – Carcinogenic (access required)

Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. McCormick Insulation Supply, Inc. When plaintiff stopped supplying its Foamglas directly to defendant McCormick Insulation Supply, McCormick not only started buying Foamglas from other sources but also started buying cheaper Chinese cellular glass insulation, which defendant Batts Fabricators mixed it with Foamglas and sold to its customers. The Chinese product is a less effective insulator and contains carcinogens. When defendants finally sent their customers a material safety data sheet, the notice was confusing and could have led the customers to believe Foamglas contained carcinogens.

Read More »