The first and second element that Mr. Dugan will have to prove is whether Techspert’s act or practice was unfair or deceptive and if it establishes that the act or practice occurred in trade or commerce. E.g., Hangman, 105 Wash. 2d at 785, 719 P.2d at 535. In order for a consumer to show that the act was unfair or deceptive the consumer does not need to show that it intended to deceive but that the “alleged act had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public.” Id. In addition, the act or practice must have occurred in “sales of assets or services and any commerce.” Id.
To determine if there was a deceptive act in a trade or commerce the wrongdoer would have to knowingly have failed to reveal something important or mislead …show more content…
Dugan by having a policy they failed to follow when it was advertised on the Internet. Techspert, like Indoor Billboard where it mislead consumers to believed that a surcharge was required by its regulations when it was not supposed to be applied, is similar to Techspert misleading Mr. Dugan when he purchased their services believing he would be provided with “free in-house repairs and upgrades” and “complete support services.” Moreover Techspert, like Klem where defendant failed to follow the agreement, is similar to Techspert not following its policy that was advertised and printed on brochure. However, Mr. Dugan, unlike Hangman where plaintiff did not establish that defendant owed a standard of care, did establish a standard care because the advertisement and its policy allowed consumers to believe that such actions would be taken if Techspert’s products where to fail.
Furthermore, after Mr. Dugan establishes that an injury occurred by Techspert’s unfair and deceptive act he will have to establish that it occurred in a trade or commerce. Techspert, like in Indoor Billboard and Hangman where consumer purchased a sale of assets or services, was involved an unfair and deceptive act that occurred in a trade or commerce. The sale of computers is a commercial transaction between Techspert and Mr. Dugan. …show more content…
Dugan with respect to establishing that the act or practice by Techspert is injurious to the public, is similar to Rush, Mason, and Indoor Billboard where it was not only injurious to consumer but also had the capacity to injure others. Techspert, like Rush where it sold plaintiff’s car in an auction unlawfully by not following its regulations, is similar to Techspert selling computers and not following its policy that it had advertised to the entire public. Moreover, Techspert, like Mason where there was potentiality that it would repeat the act by delivering the wrong mobile home again in a non-timely manner, also has the potentiality of repeating such act to several consumers by not following its policy that it says it will causing a substantial public interest impact. Furthermore, Indoor Billboard where it failed to disclose the true nature of the surcharge is similar to Techspert’s failure to describe the true nature of its terms, because in the advertisement it offered “free in-house repairs and upgrades,” but when requested Techspert said it was not possible. However, Techspert, unlike Hangman where the business was acting within the scope and was not subject to exploitation, is not similar to Techspert because it was not acting within the scope of business. Moreover, it did subject Mr. Dugan to exploitation and it was unable to protect