 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martinez v. Lewis11/29/1996
pl. Vol. 2) of the Act provides in pertinent part:
person engages in a deceptive trade practice when in the course of such person's business, vocation, or occupation, such person . . .
(e) knowingly making a false representation as to the characteristics . . . uses, benefits . . . of . . . services . . . therewith
(g) represents that . . . services . . . are of a particular standard, quality or grade . . . if he knows or should know they are of another.
Section 6-1-113(1), C.R.S. (1992 Repl. Vol. 2) provides:
The provisions of this article shall be available to any person in a civil action for any claim against any person who has engaged in or caused another to engage in any deceptive trade practice listed in 6-1-105 or 6-1-105.5.
The goal of a court in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. In order to determine the legislative intent, courts look first to the statutory language. May Department Stores Co. v. State ex rel. Woodard, 863 P.2d 967 (Colo. 1993). Each word in a statute has a meaning that is presumed to be consistent with the intent of the statute. Farmers Group, Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1991). A statute should be interpreted so as to give effect to all its parts. People in Interest of J.L.R., 895 P.2d 1151 (Colo. App. 1995).
Actions may be brought by the attorney general or the district attorney to protect the public from deceptive trade practices by enjoining, assessing civil penalties, or otherwise restraining others from engaging in deceptive trade practices. Sections 6-1-107 and 6-1-110, C.R.S. (1992 Repl. Vol. 2); see also Lee, Colorado Consumer Protection Act: Panacea or Pandora's Box, 70 Den. U.L. Rev. 141 at 148-49 (1992).
Potential consumers are the persons ultimately protected from these deceptive trade practices by such public actions. See May Department Stores Co. v. State ex. rel. Woodard, supra; Western Food Plan, Inc. v. District Court, 198 Colo. 251, 598 P.2d 1038 (1979); People ex rel. Dunbar v. Gym of America, Inc., 177 Colo. 97, 493 P.2d 660 (1972).
The Act also provides that the provisions of the article shall "be available" to "any person" for any claim against any person who has engaged in deceptive trade practices. Section 6-1-113, C.R.S. (1992 Repl. Vol. 2).
In construing the Act, a court should refer to the group of persons to whom the statute applies, the kind of sanction imposed, the nature of the statute's subject matter, and the economic and social desirability of the statute's particular legislative policy. People ex rel. Dunbar v. Gym of America, Inc., supra.
In this regard, we note that the Act is entitled the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Section 6-1-101, C.R.S. (1992 Repl. Vol. 2); see Martinez v. Continental Enterprises, 730 P.2d 308 (Colo. 1986) (although the title of a statute is not dispositive of legislative intent, it may be used as an aid in construing a statute).
Although the legislative history of the Act was not memorialized in any way, courts have extracted a legislative purpose. See May Department Stores Co. v. State ex rel. Woodard, supra; Lee, supra, 70 Den. U.L. Rev. at 148-49.
The Act was enacted in order to control various deceptive trade practices in dealing with the public. People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Alpert Corp., 660 P.2d 1295 (Colo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|