Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Poole V. Nev. Auto Dealership Inv.’S, Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (Sept. 5, 2019), Petya Pucci
Poole V. Nev. Auto Dealership Inv.’S, Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (Sept. 5, 2019), Petya Pucci
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NDTPA”) , (1) “knowingly” means that “the defendant is aware that the facts exist that constitute the act or omission”, and (2) that a fact is “material” if either (a) “a reasonable person would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining a choice of action in the transaction in question,” or b) “the defendant knows or has reason to know that the consumer regards or is likely to regard the matter as important in determining a choice of action, although a reasonable person may not so regard …
State, Dep’T Of Bus. & Indus. V. Titlemax, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Sept. 26, 2019), Alexis Taitel
State, Dep’T Of Bus. & Indus. V. Titlemax, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Sept. 26, 2019), Alexis Taitel
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an en banc opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court answered whether title lender TitleMax’s Grace Period Deferment Agreement (“GPPDA”), which applied to short-term, high-interest loans offered to Nevada consumers in 2014 and 2015, qualified as a true grace period under NRS 604A.210. The Court concluded that the GPPDA was not a true grace period, but was instead an impermissible extension of the 210-day loans. The Court reasoned that the GPPDA was an extension because TitleMax charged borrowers additional interest during the extended period and thus violated NRS 604A.445, a statute enacted by the Nevada Legislature in part to protect consumers …