Douglas C. Beer v. Terry M. Bennett, 160 N.H. 166

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed a judgment arising from the sale of a partially disassembled Fiat automobile. The court held that the dealer's reckless disregard for the truth of advertising statements supported a violation of the Consumer Protection Act and upheld the remedy of refunding the purchase price and shipping costs as rescission or revocation of acceptance under the Uniform Commercial Code. The court declined to treat the refunded amounts as damages subject to doubling or trebling under the Consumer Protection Act.

Holdings

1. A seller's reckless disregard for the truth of representations about goods, including representations made without sufficient knowledge or inspection, satisfies the knowledge or intent requirement for a Consumer Protection Act violation when the representations induce the purchase and attain the requisite level of rascality.
2. The court did not recognize or need to decide whether New Hampshire law imposes a special duty of disclosure on registered automobile dealers because any error concerning that theory was harmless and other valid claims supported the judgment.
3. The remedy requiring Bennett to refund the purchase price and shipping costs in exchange for return of the Fiat was proper as enforcement of the buyer's revocation of acceptance under the Uniform Commercial Code.
4. Purchase-price and shipping-cost refunds awarded as part of rescission are not damages subject to double or treble enhancement under RSA 358-A:10.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bennett's advertisement constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act despite the absence of proof that he intentionally made a misrepresentation.
2. Whether Bennett owed a special statutory or common-law duty of disclosure as a registered automobile dealer.
3. Whether the district court's remedy of refunding the purchase price and shipping costs in exchange for return of the vehicle was proper under the Uniform Commercial Code's revocation-of-acceptance provisions.
4. Whether the buyer's refunded purchase price and shipping costs constituted damages subject to double or treble enhancement under the Consumer Protection Act.

Disposition

affirmed