Opinion ID: 2621872
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: upa violation

Text: {24} The UPA makes it unlawful, in the conduct of any trade or commerce, to engage in unfair or deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices. Section 57-12-3. An unfair or deceptive trade practice is defined in the UPA as any false or misleading oral or written statement, visual description or other representation of any kind knowingly made in connection with the sale, lease, rental or loan of goods or services or in the extension of credit or in the collection of debts by any person in the regular course of his [or her] trade or commerce, which may, tends to or does deceive or mislead any person. Section 57-12-2(D). In addition, the UPA empowers the attorney general to issue and file as required by law all regulations necessary to implement and enforce any provision of the Unfair Practices Act. Section 57-12-13. Pursuant to this power, the attorney general has implemented regulations, in part, to deter unfair business practices within the automotive industry. 12.2.6.6 NMAC. These regulations provide that [i]t is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for an automotive repair shop to fail to post the major provisions of its warranty policy in a prominent and conspicuous location within the repair facility and to fail to provide any person who has purchased automotive repair services with a written warranty or statement that there is no warranty, if such is the case. 12.2.6.9(A) NMAC. {25} A violation of the regulations is a violation of the UPA. 12.2.6.15 NMAC. The regulations, however, are not exhaustive, but rather provide basic rules. 12.2.6.8(C) NMAC. As such, it is not intended that literal compliance with [the] regulations be an absolute protection against liability for practices and procedures surrounding automotive repair. Id. Therefore, in reviewing compliance with the regulations, we are to take all relevant circumstances into account, and if the purpose of the ... requirement in the regulation is met, regardless of whether or not the technical requirements of the regulations are met, then a party can be found to be in substantial compliance. 12.2.6.13 NMAC. {26} In this case, the trial court found that Mitsubishi failed to provide Salazar with a statement of warranty, and thus violated the regulations. The record supports such a finding. At trial, there was testimony indicating that Mitsubishi warranted their labor, and it is undisputed that Coronado provided a 90-day warranty on the used engine. Yet, Salazar testified that Mitsubishi never provided her with a written statement explaining this warranty information. {27} The closest evidence indicating that Salazar received any warranty information in writing is the document that contained the Exclusion of Warranties provision. However, as previously discussed, this document did not effectively disclaim any warranties. In addition, the document addresses neither the alleged warranty on labor provided by Mitsubishi nor the 90-day warranty on the engine provided by Coronado. As previously discussed, there is also some confusion regarding whether Salazar signed the document in question at all. If Salazar did not sign the document, an inference can be made that she never received it. If this is the case, there is no evidence that Mitsubishi provided her with any warranty information. If, on the other hand, Salazar did receive the document, the only warranty information she was provided was an ineffective disclaimer of warranty. In either case, Mitsubishi failed to provide Salazar with appropriate warranty information. In failing to do so, Mitsubishi violated the attorney general's regulations and, in turn, violated the UPA.