Can the other side release or waive Minnesota consumer-protection claims in this contract?
This rule does not establish a Minnesota anti-waiver statute; it states what the private remedy is and how narrow it is. Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1 directs the attorney general to investigate violations of Minnesota law respecting unfair, discriminatory and other unlawful practices in business, commerce or trade, naming among others the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (§§ 325F.68 to 325F.70), and subd. 3a provides that, in addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law, any person injured by a violation of those laws may bring a civil action and recover damages together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney's fees, and receive other equitable relief. The Supreme Court held in Ly v. Nystrom that the private attorney general statute applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.
The trap
The public-benefit limit does the work a waiver clause is usually drafted to do, and it cuts against the claimant before any waiver is reached: Ly was defrauded in a single one-on-one transaction and, because enforcement had no public benefit, could not use § 8.31, subd. 3a at all. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part: the Court held that the unlawful practices in that one-on-one purchase of a business for operation and not resale fell within the trade practices § 325F.69, subdivision 1 prohibits, and then denied him the private remedy. Two honest gaps. Minnesota's consumer statutes themselves (chapters 325D, 325F and 325G) are NOT among the statutes available here, so this rule cannot quote the Consumer Fraud Act, and no anti-waiver provision is verified here; do not assume one exists or does not. And § 8.31, subd. 3a is not limited by its words to household consumers (Ly himself was buying a business), so this rule is not tagged to consumer contracts.
8 authorities
- statuteMinn. Stat. § 8.31enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
The attorney general shall investigate violations of the law of this state respecting unfair, discriminatory, and other unlawful practices in business, commerce, or trade, and specifically, but not exclusively, the Nonprofit Corporation Act (sections 317A.001 to 317A.909), the Act Against Unfair Discrimination and Competition (sections 325D.01 to 325D.07), the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (sections 325D.09 to 325D.16), the Antitrust Act (sections 325D.49 to 325D.66), section 325F.67 and other laws against false or fraudulent advertising, the antidiscrimination acts contained in section 325D.67 , the act against monopolization of food products (section 325D.68), the act regulating telephone advertising services (section 325E.39), the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (sections 325F.68 to 325F.70), and chapter 53A regulating currency exchanges and assist in the enforcement of those laws as in this section provided.
- statuteMinn. Stat. § 8.31enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
In addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law, any person injured by a violation of any of the laws referred to in subdivision 1 may bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney's fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court. The court may, as appropriate, enter a consent judgment or decree without the finding of illegality. In any action brought by the attorney general pursuant to this section, the court may award any of the remedies allowable under this subdivision.
The words that state the rule
Based on these considerations we hold that the Private AG Statute applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.
The words that state the rule
Appellant was defrauded in a single one-on-one transaction in which the fraudulent misrepresentation, while evincing reprehensible conduct, was made only to appellant. A successful prosecution of his fraud claim does not advance state interests and enforcement has no public benefit, and is not a claim that could be considered to be within the duties and responsibilities of the attorney general to investigate and enjoin.
The words that state the rule
During negotiations between appellant Hoang Minh Ly and respondent Kim Nystrom for the purchase of respondent's restaurant, respondent made misrepresentations to appellant relating to monthly profits and the condition of the restaurant and its inventory.
The words that state the rule
We conclude that the unlawful practices here, occurring while engaging in a one-on-one transaction for the purchase of a business for operation and not resale, fall within the trade practices prohibited by section 325F.69, subdivision 1.
- statuteMinn. Stat. § 8.31enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
Any permanent injunction, judgment or order of the court made pursuant to subdivision 3 shall be prima facie evidence in an action brought under subdivision 3a that the defendant used or employed an act or practice in violation of the laws referred to in subdivision 1, provided that this subdivision shall not apply to consent judgments or decrees where the court makes no finding of illegality, including assurances of discontinuance pursuant to subdivision 2b.
The words that state the rule
A successful prosecution of his fraud claim does not advance state interests and enforcement has no public benefit, and is not a claim that could be considered to be within the duties and responsibilities of the attorney general to investigate and enjoin. [25] Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
“Defective” means that reading found something to correct. What you are reading is the rule as it stands after that reading.