Summary
This Nebraska Supreme Court opinion addresses whether the state's Consumer Protection Act applies to an isolated private transaction between individuals. The court held that the CPA requires a showing of impact on the public interest and therefore does not govern strictly private sales. However, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the buyer, finding that any error in applying the CPA was harmless because the jury instructions provided identical damages calculations for all three theories of recovery, including fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. Additionally, the court ruled that the corporate president could be held personally liable for fraud committed by the corporation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act applies to a private transaction that does not affect the public interest
- Whether the erroneous application of the CPA constitutes reversible error
Holdings
- The CPA does not apply to transactions that do not affect the public interest.
- The erroneous application of the CPA was harmless error because the jury instructions on damages were identical for all three theories of recovery; the judgment is affirmed.
Key quotations
“We hold that the CPA does not apply to transactions that do not affect the public interest.” (at 1)
“We therefore conclude that the Legislature did not intend such a result when it adopted 1974 Neb. Laws, L.B. 1028, as an antitrust measure to protect Nebraska consumers from monopolies and price‑fixing conspiracies.” (at 2)
Factual background
Appellee purchased a 1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee from Lusterstone Surfacing Co. and its president, Stephen J. Myers, who failed to disclose that the vehicle had a prior salvage designation in Iowa. After discovering the salvage title, the appellee sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.
Procedural history
The trial court entered judgment for the appellee on fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and a Nebraska Consumer Protection Act claim. The appellants appealed, arguing errors including the application of the CPA, jury instructions, and a directed verdict.