Issue: In Michigan, what is the scope of the Consumer Protection Act?
|Area of Law:||Administrative Law, Administrative Law & Regulation (Federal and State)|
|Keywords:||Consumer Protection Act; Scope; False or deceptive practices in the conduct of trade or commerce|
|Cited Statutes:||MCL 445.903; MCL 257.1401, 257.1403(1), 257.1403(3), 257.1404; Section 2-608(1) of the UCC; MCL 440.2608; UCC § 2-717; MCL 440.2717; 15 USC 2310(d)(1)|
TA s "Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.903" c 2 l "Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.903"Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.903, prohibits false or deceptive practices in the conduct of trade or commerce. Among the prohibited practices is “failing to provide promised benefits,” which includes benefits promised or implied by operation of law. Mikos v Chrysler Corp, 158 Mich App 781; 404 NW2d 783 (1987) (breach of implied warranty constitutes a failure to provide the promised benefits within meaning of the Act). Thus, any violation of statute or common law constitutes a violation of the MCPA, as well.
Michigan’s “Lemon Law” provides that the manufacturer of a vehicle is obligated to repair a motor vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. TA s "MCL 257.1401." c 2 l "Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, MCL 257.1401"MCL 257.1401. If the vehicle is not repaired within a reasonable time, the customer is entitled to a refund or replacement. TA s "MCL 257.1403" c 2 l "Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, MCL 257.1403"MCL 257.1403(1). It is presumed that there has been a reasonable number of attempts if “[t]he same defect or condition that substantially impairs the use or value of the new motor vehicle to the consumer has been subject to repair a total of 4 or more times by the manufacturer or new motor vehicle dealer and the defect or condition continues to exist.” MCL 257.1403(3). See also TA s "Extrusion Painting v Awnings Unlimited, Inc, 37 […]