Opinion ID: 479181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices

Text: 74 The district court granted Ward a directed verdict on Count XIX, the Employees' claim that Ward's conduct violated Haw.Rev.Stat. Sec. 480-2 (1976), which prohibits [u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Haw.Rev.Stat. Sec. 480-13 provides a private right of action for violation of Sec. 480-2. 75 To maintain a cause of action under Sec. 480-13, a private plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that a violation of chapter 480 [Monopolies; Restraint of Trade] i.e., an unfair act has occurred; (2) that an injury to plaintiff's business or property has resulted; (3) proof of damages; and (4) that the action is in the public interest or that the defendant is a merchant. Rosa v. Johnson, 3 Haw.App. 420, 651 P.2d 1228, 1233 (1982); Wiginton v. Pacific Credit Corp., 2 Haw.App. 435, 634 P.2d 111, 118 (1981). 76 In Ailetcher v. Beneficial Finance Co., 2 Haw.App. 301, 632 P.2d 1071, 1076 (1981), the Hawaii court stated that in the absence of a statutory violation, restraint of trade, or monopolization of commerce, a prima facie case still might exist if the public interest requiring protection was sufficiently strong. In Ailetcher, an automobile dealer and one employee sued a finance company because of the finance company's refusal to make loans to the dealer's customers until the employee paid a delinquent loan. The court found no statutory violation, and no action constituting an unfair method of competition, restraint of trade, or a monopolization of commerce. However, the court broadly construed Secs. 480-2 and 480-13, holding that an unfair act is committed, and the public interest requirement is met whenever the unfair method is being employed under circumstances which involved flagrant oppression of the weak by the strong. 77 In a subsequent case, Rosa v. Johnson, 3 Haw.App. 420, 651 P.2d 1228, 1234 (1982), the court of appeals stated that a practice is unfair when it offends established public policy and when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. Accord, Eastern Star, Inc. v Union Building Materials, 712 P.2d 1148, 1154 (Haw.App.1985). 78 We are unable to conclude that Ward's negligent misrepresentation, without more, constituted flagrant oppression, or immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous conduct. Dismissal of this count on a directed verdict was proper. 79