concluding that Ly, who was the buy er of a restaurant business, could not recover attorney fees in a subdivision 3a claim against the seller because the claim provided no benefit to the public
How later courts described this case
- concluding that Ly, who was the buy er of a restaurant business, could not recover attorney fees in a subdivision 3a claim against the seller because the claim provided no benefit to the public
- concluding that there is no public benefit when party was defrauded “in a single one-on-one transaction in which the fraudulent misrepresentation . . . was made only to the appellant”
- noting the distinction between “experienced commercial parties and ordinary consumer transactions and finding that because the party was a consumer, not a merchant, the transaction fell within the scope of consumer transactions regulated by the Consumer Fraud Act
- holding that plaintiffs who bring claims under the private attorney general statute must also “demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GILBERT, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the concurrence and dissent of Justice Page.