Court Opinion

ID: 9585682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:02:45.155078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:52.401949
License: Public Domain

Judge Hedrick
dissenting.
In paragraph eleven of its amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant engaged in an “unfair and deceptive act or practice affecting commerce” in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1, and prayed that any damages be trebled pursuant to G.S. 75-16. The court did not submit an issue to the jury, however, as to whether defendant did in fact engage in an unfair or deceptive act or practice in its dealings with the plaintiff. Issues 3(a) and (b), set out in the record and in the majority opinion, are couched in the language of the rules and regulations governing the operation of private personnel services described in G.S. 95-47.6(2) and (9). It appears that the trial court entered a judgment based on a finding that the defendant had violated the provisions of G.S. 95-47.6(2) and (9). A party violating these statutes is subject to punishment by the Commissioner of Labor by means of warnings, a fine of up to $250.00, and suspension or revocation of the license of the private personnel service. While evidence that defendant violated these statutes might also support a finding that defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of G.S. 75-1.1, the court, in my opinion, has no authority to enter a judgment pursuant to Chapter 75 on a verdict disclosing only a violation of Chapter 95. In short, the issues submitted to the jury do not resolve the controversy between the parties raised by the pleadings and the evidence with respect to whether defendant *383engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice. I vote to award the defendant a new trial.