Opinion ID: 2575849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural History Of The HRS Ch. 481C Claims

Text: On November 15, 2001, ASR filed a motion in limine to exclude claims based on HRS ch. 481C. The Appellants responded with a memorandum in opposition on November 21, 2001. On November 28, 2001, ASR followed with a trial memorandum regarding the inapplicability of HRS ch. 481C to the Appellants' asserted claims. On November 29, 2001, the Appellants filed a motion under HRCP Rule 50(a) for a judgment as a matter of law on this issue. Finally, on December 3, 2001, the Appellants filed a memorandum in opposition to a motion for judgment as a matter of law apparently filed by ASR, although the record on appeal does not contain any reference to ASR's motion. The circuit court conducted a hearing on both parties' motions on December 3, 2001 and granted a judgment as a matter of law in ASR's favor and against the Appellants. In its ruling, the circuit court relied on Cooper v. Crow, 574 So.2d 438 (La.Ct.App.1991) (holding that when a customer who evinced an intention to purchase awnings invited the vendor to her home to establish terms and price, the vendor did not solicit the sale pursuant to the language of 16 C.F.R. pt. 429, containing federal door-to-door sales regulations similar to HRS ch. 481C), and State v. Stereo Importers, 114 Misc.2d 864, 452 N.Y.S.2d 835 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1982) (holding that, where vendor used ad media to promote off-site liquidation sales, under New York's door-to-door sales act vendor did not solicit customers who made initial contact). The circuit court determined that, by analogy, because the Appellants initiated contact with ASR, their claims did not fall within the purview of HRS chapter 481C because ASR did not solicit the sale as required by this statute. The circuit court noted that, in 1976 amendments to the bill that would become HRS ch. 481C, the legislature removed from the definition of door-to-door sales any transaction in which the buyer has initiated the contact. (Citing Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 25-76, in 1976 Senate Journal, at 918.) On March 21, 2002, following a jury verdict in favor of ASR on all remaining counts, the circuit court entered final judgment on all claims, including the HRS ch. 481C claims, in favor of ASR and against the Appellants. On March 25, 2002, the Appellants timely filed their notice of appeal to this court.