Issue: Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, in order for a merchant of goods to be liable for injuries, must there be a positive act committed or is inaction sufficient?
| Area of Law: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Liability for injuries; Merchant of goods; Positive act or inaction |
| Jurisdiction: | Pennsylvania |
| Cited Cases: | 116 F.3d 468; 939 F. Supp. 1186; 607 A.2d 745 |
| Cited Statutes: | Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 73, § 201-2(4)(v) |
| Date: | 01/01/2001 |
Subsection (v) prohibits "[r]epresenting that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities that they do not have." Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 73, § 201-2(4)(v). Subsection (vii) prohibits "[r]epresenting that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade, or that the goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another." Id. at subsec. (vii). See Burkholder v. Cherry, 414 Pa. Super. 432, 607 A.2d 745, 749 (1992) (unfair trade practices law does not apply in the absence of a showing of fraud, when the defendant had made no representations to the plaintiffs regarding his skills). Nonfeasance is not sufficient to establish a claim under the unfair trade practices law. Leo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 939 F. Supp. 1186, 1193 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff’d 116 F.3d 468 (3d Cir. 1997).
[…]