Opinion ID: 2574876
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The consumers' statutory claims

Text: The consumers' complaint alleges that the dealerships have routinely breached the disclosure requirements set forth in AS 45.25.465 and AS 45.25.470 which in turn violate [AS 45.50.471(b)(43) and AS 45.50.471(b)(11) and (12)]. Alaska Statute 45.25.465(a)(1) requires a dealer, when obtaining a used motor vehicle from an individual consumer, to make a reasonable inquiry of the seller into the condition of the vehicle, including the accident and repair history of the vehicle. The dealer is required to provide this information to a prospective purchaser of the vehicle. [12] When a dealer obtains a used motor vehicle from another motor vehicle dealer, a wholesaler, or an auction, the dealer must disclose to a prospective purchaser of the vehicle that the vehicle was purchased from another dealer, a wholesaler, or an auction. [13] Alaska Statute 45.25.470 provides that [b]efore sale, a motor vehicle dealer shall disclose in writing whether a motor vehicle was originally manufactured for sale in Canada or another foreign country. Alaska Statute 45.50.471 makes unlawful unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. These include engaging in ... conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding and which misleads, deceives or damages a buyer or a competitor in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods or services, [14] and using or employing deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or knowingly concealing, suppressing, or omitting a material fact with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression, or omission in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods or services whether or not a person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged. [15] The unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices also include violating AS 45.25.400-45.25.590. [16] Alaska Statute 45.50.531(a) provides that [a] person who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of another person's act or practice declared unlawful by AS 45.50.471 may bring a civil action to recover for each unlawful act or practice.... In Angnabooguk v. State, [17] we held that a complaint should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. [18] Thus, we must determine whether the consumers could prove any set of facts in support of their AS 45.50.531(a) claims against Lithia Hyundai and Lithia Chevrolet. Did the consumers have standing to sue Lithia Hyundai and Lithia Chevrolet when their complaint did not allege that any of the individual plaintiffs were actually injured by those dealerships' actions? If they did not have standing, then they could prove no set of facts in support of their claims against the two dealerships, and the dismissal of those dealerships was proper.