Quat Law Offices handles a wide variety of matters involving dishonest and fraudulent conduct by businesses and corporations. These include:
- "lemon law," warranty, and other motor vehicle issues
- "business opportunity" scams
- false advertising
- excessive fees, charges, and penalties
- unfair or unconscionable contracts
- defective and dangerous products
Massachusetts has one of the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation. This law — often referred to as "Chapter 93A" — prohibits "unfair and deceptive trade practices." Chapter 93A covers a wide range of improper conduct by businesses. In addition, federal law provides remedies in certain situations.
Chapter 93A provides a powerful remedy for consumers. If it is proven in court that the conduct in question violated Chapter 93A, the consumer must be awarded actual damages or $25, whichever is greater.
In cases where the conduct is shown to have been willful and knowing, the damages must be doubled or trebled by the court. The consumer will also be awarded costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
Examples of results we have obtained in this area include:
Leasecomm is a Massachusetts company which for many years leased business equipment — primarily credit card machines — to small and start-up businesses, most of whom resided out-of-state and had poor credit. All leases were "non-cancelable." When lessees stopped paying, usually due to problems with the equipment, Leasecomm added exorbitant late fees and collection charges and ultimately sued them in Massachusetts. Most of the cases resulted in Leasecomm obtaining default judgments. We began to aggressively defend these cases. We were able to obtain releases and dismissals, and in some cases refunds, for hundreds of lessees. We were also able to settle numerous other cases for small percentages of the amounts allegedly owed. We filed several class actions challenging Leasecomm's business practices, including those involving Galaxy Mall and E-Commerce Exchange (see below). We also cooperated with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office in its successful effort to bring about permanent changes in the company's business and collection practices.
Deke et al. v. Cardservice International, Inc.
(Los Angeles County Superior Court)
This case claimed that early termination fees imposed by a major credit card processor were unlawfully excessive. A settlement on behalf of a nationwide class was obtained which brought about a significant change in the challenged business practice, which had a potential monetary value to class members in excess of $7 million (refunds and debt cancellation), and which resulted in credit repair for class members.
Martin v. Axin Financial Services, Inc., et al
(Orange County Cal. Superior Court)
This case alleged that certain contracts purporting to be finance leases were unconscionable. A settlement on behalf of a nationwide class was reached which resulted in refunds and debt cancellation slightly in excess of $2 million, plus credit repair for class members.
Smith v. Galaxy Mall, Inc., et al.
(Orange County Cal. Superior Court)
Plaintiffs asserted that certain finance leases and the marketing scheme which resulted in same were unconscionable. A settlement on behalf of a class of California residents was reached which resulted in refunds and debt cancellation of approximately $420,000, plus credit repair for class members.
Bloom et al. v. Diamond Motors (Dedham District Court)
Used car purchased by our client developed problems during the warranty period which dealer refused to repair. Case was settled for double the amount of the repair costs.
If you have been involved in a transaction which you believe to have been unfair, deceptive, or fraudulentin any respect, you should contact us for a case evaluation at no charge. If you have a valid claim, it can be pursued as either an individual or class action case, depending on the circumstances.