Williams v. Fiedler

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that insured’s -8- J-S52015-15 claim that letters written by attorney should have been admissible under business records hearsay exception was not properly before appellate court, where insured did not raise hearsay exception before trial court
• noting that Pennsylvania cases distinguish between common law claims and claims brought pursuant to the UTPCPL for purposes of fixing the appropriate limitations period
• acknowledging express private cause of action for violation of the Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”
• noting the UTPCPL “encompasses an array of practices which might be analogized to passing off, misappropriation, trademark infringement, disparagement, false advertising, fraud, breach of contract, and breach of warranty”
• stating, an individual must prove that the vendor engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices and that the transaction between the parties constituted “trade or commerce” within the meaning of the UTPCPL
• common law fraud and claims brought pursuant to the UTPCPL are separate and legally distinct under Pennsylvania law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).