Consumer Protection

• NCJ Number: 74961
• Journal: Louisiana Law Review Volume: 40 Dated: (1980) Pages: 619-634
• Author(s): R L Hersbergen
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 16 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Louisiana and Federal law and judicial decisions are examined under the topics of the civil code as a source of consumer protection, unfair or deceptive practices, automobile sales, rates of charge in consumer transactions, and equal credit opportunity.

Abstract

In Louisiana, the seller is bound by a warranty that what is sold is reasonably fit for its intended use. Many sales documents include a statement of the buyer's waiver of such a warranty. The law requires that such renunciation statements by 'clear, unambiguous, explicit, and unequivocal.' Further, a renunciation statement must be brought to the attention of the buyer and explained to him/her. Judicial decisions bearing upon an interpretation of the renunciation requirements have strictly interpreted the requirements so as to favor the consumer. Federal law imposes liability of up to $1,500 on a transferor who knowingly sells a motor vehicle bearing a false odometer reading. The Supreme Court has categorized the law as authorizing the recovery of actual damages only, not penalties. In a precomputed consumer credit transaction, the Louisiana Consumer Credit Law provides that if the maturity is accelerated for any reason and suit is filed, 'thereafter the obligation sued upon shall be deemed to bear a loan finance charge or credit service charge on the amount due not to exceed the rate previously charged on the obligation.' A judicial decision interpreted this law as authorizing a creditor to charge as much interest after maturity as charged in the original transaction, but only for a period of 1 year after contractual maturity, thereafter to be within 8 percent annually. Federal law requires that the granting of credit not be discriminatory on any basis other than creditworthiness. Courts have interpreted this to require those granting credit to give a statement of the reasons for credit refusal to the applicant. Case notes are provided.