Beer v. Bennett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that seller could violate either section V or VII for representing an item has characteristics or qualities it lacks
• holding that seller could violate either section V or VII for representing an item has characteristics or qualities it lacks
• concluding there was sufficient evidence that the defendant violated RSA 358-A:2, V, where the defendant knowingly made unsubstantiated representations with the intent of inducing plaintiff to make a purchase
• concluding there was sufficient evidence that the defendant violated RSA 358-A:2, V, where the defendant knowingly made unsubstantiated representations with the intent of inducing plaintiff to make a purchase
• observing that, although rescission is an equitable remedy, and although the district court lacks a general grant of equitable power, the remedy was available under the facts of the case pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code
• affirming application of CPA where defendant “made representations, knowing he lacked sufficient knowledge to substantiate them, to induce the plaintiff’s purchase”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).