Opinion ID: 1058165
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Virginia Consumer Protection Act

Text: Concord argues that any statutory duties arising under the Act are duties that arise solely by virtue of the [Contracts] entered into between the [Purchasers] and Concord. We disagree. The VCPA was enacted with the intent of the General Assembly that [it] shall be applied as remedial legislation to promote fair and ethical standards of dealings between suppliers and the consuming public. Code § 59.1-197. Pursuant to Code § 59.1-200(A)(6), the VCPA makes it unlawful for a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction to [m]isrepresent[] that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model. In pertinent part, Code § 59.1-198 defines a [c]onsumer transaction as [t]he advertisement, sale, lease, license or offering for sale, lease or license, of goods or services to be used primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Goods are defined as all real, personal or mixed property, tangible or intangible. Id. (emphasis added). Lastly, a [s]upplier is defined as a seller, lessor or licensor who advertises, solicits or engages in consumer transactions. Id. Based on the plain language of the VCPA, it is unlawful to misrepresent that goods are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model. Code § 59.1-200(A)(6). This duty not to misrepresent the quality, grade, or style of goods is a statutory duty that exists independent of the Contracts entered into between the parties to this litigation, viz., the duty is not one existing between the parties solely by virtue of the contract. Dunn Construction, 278 Va. at 267, 682 S.E.2d at 946. Because the Purchasers have alleged that Concord breached a duty existing independent of the Contracts, we hold that the trial court erred when it sustained Concord's demurrers to the Purchasers' VCPA claims.