Opinion ID: 1932709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: UTPA Violations

Text: [¶ 13] Shattuck next contends that the Superior Court erred in determining that his behavior violated the UTPA. The UTPA makes unlawful `[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.' Bangor Publ'g Co. v. Union St. Mkt., 1998 ME 37, ¶ 7, 706 A.2d 595, 597 (quoting 5 M.R.S.A. § 207 (1989)). Neither term as used in Maine's UTPA can be precisely defined, and their applicability should be determined on a case by case basis. Guiggey v. Bombardier, 615 A.2d 1169, 1172 (Me.1992). We review the Superior Court's conclusions for clear error. See Sebago Lake Camps, Inc. v. Simpson, 434 A.2d 519, 521 (Me.1981). [¶ 14] The court concluded that under most circumstances Shattuck's policy not to pre-show rooms standing alone would not be unfair, but concluded that in the current context it was unfair because Shattuck entices customers onto his property and creates a situation in which he can selectively abuse the traveling public. We agree. Shattuck's response to customers' questions regarding the policy was demonstrated to have been not merely rude but frightening and threatening to potential customers. [¶ 15] Similarly, Shattuck's policy of allowing only patrons to turn around in the motel driveway is both abusive and unfair in its enforcement. As the court concluded, backing out onto Route 1 can be an unpleasant and dangerous experience. Shattuck's behavior in forcing frightened and tearful prospective customers to back out of his property onto a busy thoroughfare, rather than turn around and drive out into the traffic, was also demonstrated to have been sufficiently outrageous and dangerous that the court did not err in finding the conduct to have violated the UTPA. [2] [¶ 16] We agree with Shattuck that the UTPA does not control simple rude or boorish behavior on the part of merchants. [3] However, when the conduct of a merchant repeatedly frightens, terrorizes, or physically endangers the public, and when that conduct is sufficiently outrageous that it may reasonably be understood to have such an effect, that conduct is unfair within the meaning of the UTPA. The record reflects sufficient facts to support the Superior Court's conclusion that Shattuck's behavior rose to the level of an unfair trade practice.