Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Novare Group V. Sarif: Buyer Beware; Georgia Consumers Can't Rely On The Fair Business Practices Act, Mark E. Budnitz
Novare Group V. Sarif: Buyer Beware; Georgia Consumers Can't Rely On The Fair Business Practices Act, Mark E. Budnitz
Mark E. Budnitz
The article discusses the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision, Novare Group v. Sarif, 290 Ga. 186, 718 S.E.2d 304 (2011). The article analyzes the court’s response to the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant brokers and developers violated the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), Georgia’s primary consumer protection statute. I contend that the court’s approach undermines the FBPA. I describe the General Assembly’s purpose in enacting the FBPA and criticize the court for treating claims under the FBPA the same as common law fraud claims. I also examine the court’s treatment of parol evidence and merger clauses. I discuss the implications …
Novare Group V. Sarif: Buyer Beware; Georgia Consumers Can't Rely On The Fair Business Practices Act, Mark E. Budnitz
Novare Group V. Sarif: Buyer Beware; Georgia Consumers Can't Rely On The Fair Business Practices Act, Mark E. Budnitz
Mark E. Budnitz
In Novare Group v. Sarif, 290 Ga. 186, 718 S.E.2d 304 (2011), the Georgia Supreme Court substantially thwarted the legislature's intention in enacting the Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), Georgia's primary consumer protection statute. The article analyzes the court’s approach to the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant brokers and developers violated the FBPA. I examine the court’s approach to parol evidence and merger clauses. I describe the General Assembly’s purpose in enacting the FBPA and criticize the court for treating claims under the FBPA the same as common law fraud claims. I discuss the implications for future actions seeking redress …
Patient Protection And Decision Aid Quality: Regulatory And Tort Law Approaches, Nadia N. Sawicki
Patient Protection And Decision Aid Quality: Regulatory And Tort Law Approaches, Nadia N. Sawicki
Nadia N. Sawicki
One of the most enduring debates at the intersection of administrative and tort law focuses on the challenge of identifying the most effective means of ensuring consumer safety. In some circumstances, standard-setting administrative regulations may be sufficient to protect consumers from harm while at the same supporting the growth of valuable industries. In other circumstances, regulation may need to be supplemented by a complementary tort regime that fills the compensation gap when consumers suffer injury. The discussion among policymakers and legal scholars about which system to favor is continually playing out in a variety of arenas, most notably in the …
"A Necessary Cost Of Freedom"? The Incoherence Of Sorrell V. Ims, Tamara R. Piety
"A Necessary Cost Of Freedom"? The Incoherence Of Sorrell V. Ims, Tamara R. Piety
Tamara R. Piety
No abstract provided.
Finding Room For Fairness In Formalism--The Sliding Scale Approach To Unconscionability, Melissa T. Lonegrass
Finding Room For Fairness In Formalism--The Sliding Scale Approach To Unconscionability, Melissa T. Lonegrass
Melissa T. Lonegrass
This Article evaluates the sliding scale approach to unconscionability, defends its use, and advocates for its continued and expanded application to consumer standard form contracts. Part I describes the sliding scale approach and its recent popularity in state courts, thereby filling a gap in the scholarly doctrine, which has to date failed to fully examine this trend. Parts II and III defend the sliding scale approach, praising its potential to align the unconscionability analysis with interdisciplinary research regarding consumer behavior and to balance formalist concerns about judicial regulation of unfair terms in standard form contracts. Finally, Part IV calls for …
"A Necessary Cost Of Freedom"? The Incoherence Of Sorrell V. Ims, Tamara R. Piety
"A Necessary Cost Of Freedom"? The Incoherence Of Sorrell V. Ims, Tamara R. Piety
Tamara R. Piety
On June 23, 2011 the Supreme Court announced its decision in a closely watched case, Sorrell v. IMS, striking down Vermont’s law prohibiting pharmacies from selling physicians’ prescription records without their permission for use in marketing brand name drugs. The Court’s majority struck down Vermont’s statute as unconstitutional on the grounds that the law was not “content neutral” because it singled out marketing for disparate treatment. It in effect applied a strict scrutiny test to a category of speech that has technically if not in practice been subject to intermediate scrutiny. This ruling effectively does away with the commercial speech …