Opinion ID: 1418510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The complaint stated sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for damages.

Text: Defendant filed no demurrer, but relies upon the rule that the failure of a complaint to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action may be raised for the first time on appeal, citing Shires v. Cobb et al, 271 Or. 769, 534 P.2d 188 (1975). In such an event, however, the complaint will be construed more liberally in favor of the plaintiffs than if tested at the usual time by demurrer. Keegan et al v. Lenzie, 171 Or. 194, 202, 135 P.2d 717 (1943). See also Royer v. Wendland, 261 Or. 1, 5, 492 P.2d 280 (1971). Defendant says that the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act limits the civil remedy in damages to the wilful use or employment of an unlawful practice. (ORS 646.638) Defendant recognizes that plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the misrepresentations complained of were made willfully and maliciously, but contends that this was the pleading of a mere conclusion, citing Holden v. Pioneer Broadcasting Company et al, 228 Or. 405, 418, 365 P.2d 845 (1961). Regardless of whether Holden may be distinguished on its facts, as contended by plaintiffs, we hold that this allegation is sufficient in an action under this statute when its sufficiency is challenged for the first time on appeal. [3]