Court Opinion

ID: 9684620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:04:28.537175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:58.113567
License: Public Domain

GREENHILL, Chief Justice,
concurring.
The Court’s opinion relates that the statute involved has “listed” deceptive trade *565practices, and also “unlisted” deceptive trade practices. That is, the Legislature has provided a laundry list of some twenty-one listed and specified unfair trade practices, — which the Court’s opinion says are now unlawful.
The Court’s opinion also relates that the unlawful acts listed “do not form an exclusive list because that subsection states that the classification of condemned practices ‘includes, but is not limited to’ the list.”
I should like to point out that the Court’s opinion makes no holding with regard to penal damages for the violation of an unlisted or unspecified act.
I have grave doubts about the constitutionality of penal damages for the violation of “unlisted” and unspecified unlawful acts. It is one thing for the Legislature to create a cause of action in tort or contract for actual damages caused by reliance on unfair and deceptive trade practices; but it is another thing for it to create a penalty of triple damages for the violation of unwritten, unlisted and unspecified unlawful acts.