Used Cars

Jeremiah Ross Prevails in lawsuit against Portland RV Wholesale

I recently prevailed in a Lawsuit against another vehicle dealer on Portland's 82nd Ave.  On behalf of Ross Law, I represented a couple that purchased a motor-home from Portland RV Wholesale.   During the purchase the couple had questions about the motor-home and whether or not it would be inspected.  Portland RV wholesale's sales person informed the couple the motor home had been thoroughly inspected by Portland RV Wholesale.  

The couple later discovered the motor-home's  rear end and rear brakes were malfunctioning and needed to be replaced.  A mechanic noted it was obvious the rear end and brakes had been submerged in water for a period of time.  However, the couple never had submerged the vehicle in water, so the vehicle would have had to have been submerged in water prior to the sale.  If Portland RV would have inspected the vehicle they should have known that the vehicle was submerged and had defective rear brakes and a defective rear end.  

I relied on the Oregon Administrative Rules that apply to car dealers to show Portland RV Wholesale had engaged in unlawful trade practices.  The case was heard in court annexed arbitration.   The Arbitrator awarded also awarded my clients costs and their attorney fees under ORS 646.638.  However, this may be the beginning of a future battle. Portland RV Wholesale may request a trial de novo, and force my clients to put on the case again in front of a Jury.  Only time will tell what Portland RV Wholesale chooses to do. 

If you have been injured or ripped off, or a crime victim in Oregon please call Portland Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.  Please remember that all outcomes vary and Jeremiah Ross does not guarantee you can prevail in your lawsuit.  Also, please note that this post is about a Court Arbitration, and Portland RV Wholesale has the right to appeal the matter and request a Jury Trial.   The outcome may be different at a Jury Trial.   

ROSS LAW PREVAILS AGAINST STOP AND GO AUTO

Ross Law prevailed against Stop and Go Auto in private arbitration. The case involved the sale of a truck to a young man. Stop and Go falsely advertised the truck as having a tow package, when in fact it did not.

Arbitrator’s Decision

Stop and Go also subjected the consumer to a classic “Yo-Yo” scam.   Stop and Go informed the consumer that the truck purchase was final.  A few days later Stop and Go called the consumer back requesting that he return to Stop and Go to sign financing documents.  When the consumer returned to sign the documents, Stop and Go used deceptive tactics to increase the purchase price of the vehicle by $1500.00.

Jeremiah Ross was able to prove Stop and Go Auto violated the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.608) and The Truth In Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1638et seq.)   As a result, Jeremiah Ross’ client was awarded over $8,000.00 in damages in addition to costs, and attorney  fees.

Attorneys involved:

Attorney Jeremiah Ross of Portland Oregon represented the Consumer in the matter.

Attorney Richard Franklin of Gresham Oregon defended Stop and Go (AKA G&G Enterprises), and Great American Insurance Company.

JEREMIAH ROSS HONORED BY OREGON STATE BAR

Jeremiah Ross received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Oregon State Bar for his service on the Oregon State Bar Uniform Civil Jury Instructions Committee.    The committee is responsible for drafting instructions Oregon Judges and lawyers use to educate the jury on points of law.

 

If you need assistance with a legal matter, call Oregon Trial Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.  He is happy to help people injured by negligence of others, crime victims, and consumers.

OREGON’S RETAIL INSTALLMENT CONTRACT LAW

Attorneys representing clients in a case involving the purchase of a motor vehicle must carefully review the Retail Installment Contract (RIC) for statutory violations and other causes of action. The RIC is a valuable tool that can reveal  UTPA violations, Truth In Lending Act (TILA) Violations, and violations of the Oregon Administrative Rules.  Oregon Law has specific provisions that apply to every RIC in Oregon.  These statutes should be reviewed before drafting a Complaint or demand letter.

ORS 83.510(11) defines what a RIC is.  Basically the RIC is an agreement entered into in Oregon where the vehicle dealer holds the the title to the vehicle or a lien upon a motor vehicle, which is the subject matter of a retail installment sale.  Retail installment sales  make up the vast majority of vehicle sales in Oregon.

Oregon Law specifically prescribes the form and contents of the RIC.  Most consumer’s are provided the long pink piece of paper noting “Retail Installment Contract” on the heading.  ORS 83.520 notes a retail installment contract shall be in writing, shall contain all the agreements of the parties, shall contain identifying information relating to the dealer, purchaser, and vehicle.   ORS 83.520 has other statutory mandates, but the most important mandates are found in section 3.   This section is where statutory violations can be found.

ORS 83.520(3) (a) mandates the RIC to contain the “cash sale price” of the vehicle.  The “cash sale price” is defined as the price for which the vehicle dealer would sell to the consumer, and the consumer would buy from the motor vehicle dealer, if the sale were a sale for cash instead of a retail installment contract.   The “cash sale price” can include, taxes, registration, license fees and other charges for accessories and their instillation, and for vehicle improvements.

ORS 83.520(3) is very important if you are addressing a negative equity issue with the vehicle trade in.   OAR 137-020-0020(3)(aa) prohibits a negative equity adjustment when trading in a vehicle to purchase another vehicle.   The negative equity issue arises if the consumer owes more than the trade-in is worth.   (See  OAR 137-020-0020(2)(t) and (u) for a more detailed explanation of negativeequity.) OAR 137-020-0020(3)(aa) prohibits the vehicle dealer from raising the “cash sale price” of the new vehicle to offset the negative equity in the trade-in.   An unlawful negative equity violation may result in a UTPA violation, Truth In Lending Act Violation, or other violations.

ORS 83.520(3)(b) requires the RIC to note the amount of the buyer’s down payment, itemizing the amounts, if any, paid or credited in money or in goods and containing a brief description of goods traded in.   Violations of this section regularly occur when the dealer is taking in property other than a vehicle as the trade in.  I represented a client that traded in a television and video games for the vehicle down payment.  However, the dealership listed the traded in items as a $500.00 “cash down payment” on the RIC and failed to itemize the amounts given for the television and video games.  Arguably failing to comply with this section is a violation of ORS 646.608(1)(k), and ORS 646.608(1)(s).

Another often overlooked sub-section is ORS 83.520(3)(j).  That subsection mandates the RIC must include a plain and concise statement of the amount in dollars of each installment or future payment to be made by the consumer, the number of installments are required, and the date or dates which , or periods in which the installments are due.    Dealers sometimes claim to have deferred a down payment that was listed as a “cash down payment.” on the RIC.  Later the dealer asserts the consumer owes a certain amount of money for the down payment.  However there is not anything in writing noting that the down payment is owed, and the documents note that the cash down payment has been made.  This section mandates that if there are any future payments the amount and due date must be included in the RIC.  Failing to include the deferred down payment in the RIC is likely a violation of   ORS 646.608(1)(k) and  may be a violation ofOAR 137-020-0020(3)(t).

It is important to note, once the transaction is complete the dealer must deliver or mail a copy of  the RIC to the purchaser.  See ORS 83.540.   ORS 83.540 also allows for the consumer to rescind the deal in very limited circumstances.

Lastly, ORS 83.670 notes certain provisions in the RIC are unenforceable.   This section prohibits the dealer from enforcing any provision granting the dealer power of attorney or confession of judgment.  ORS 83.670 also prohibits the dealer from enforcing a provision in the RIC that allows the dealer or finance company to enter the consumers property unlawfully to repossess the vehicle .  Vehicle dealers and finance companies also cannot use any provision in the RIC to commit any illegal act to collect payments.

ORS 83.670(5) is the most important sub-section.  This section prohibits enforcement of any provision in the RIC, or any document executed in connection with the RIC, that relieves the vehicle dealer from, “liability for any legal remedies that the buyer may have had against the motor vehicle dealer under the contract.” ORS 83.670(5) As a result a waiver of rights or hold harmless agreement signed in conjunction with a RIC is unenforceable.  Attorneys handling car cases are starting to see more and more waiver of rights forms that prohibit the consumer from exercising legal rights.  Jordan Roberts wrote a fantastic blog article on the Waiver Issue that can be found by clicking here (Waiver Article).

Unfortunately, Oregon’s Vehicle Retail Installment Contract laws do not have a specific remedy provision.  However, the careful practitioner can rely on these statutes to support various legal theories and allegations.   If you find yourself involved in a case with vehicle  financing issues, it is imperative you carefully review the RIC and ORS 83.510 et seq.

Jeremiah Ross practices personal injury law and consumer law at  Ross Law LLC.

SUMMER 2015 NOTICE OF AUTO DEALER VIOLATIONS FROM THE OREGON DMV

Below is a list obtained from the Oregon Dept. Motor Vehicles quarterly report that notes the auto dealers and dealerships that were sanctioned by the DMV recently.  Ross Law is republishing this information to assist consumers in making informed purchases.  The information should be used with caution and consumers should check with the Oregon DMV to obtain the most updated reliable information related to dealer sanctions in Oregon.

VIP Motors LLC Portland Failure to satisfy interest within 15 days 2 2 $2,000(1 YR Probation) Issued temporary registration permit to person not domiciled in Oregon or eligible 2 2 $500
Failure to submit Dealer Notice of Vehicle Purchased within 7 days 2 4 $200

Pine Auto Sales LLC Salem Failure to maintain proper records 3 3 $1,500
(1 YR Probation) Failure to submit all documents necessary to transfer title to DMV within 90 days 1 1 $1,000

Metro Motors LLC Portland Failure to follow proper procedure when issuing temporary permits 2 1 $50
(90 Day Suspension) Failure to submit Dealer Notice of Vehicle Purchased within 7 days 4 5 $1,250
Ben’s Auto Sales Inc Portland Failure to furnish DMV title/registration application within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
Charging excess document preparation fee 1 5 $1,250
Failure to promptly refund excess DMV fees 3 1 $750
Luxury Motors Online Inc Portland Failure to submit fees and application to DMV within 30 days 2 2 $500
Portland Automotive Management Inc Portland Failure to furnish title within 90 days 2 1 $1,000
dba Broadway Toyota Failure to notify purchaser/LH of delay in title documents within 25 business days 2 1 $250
All Star Auto Sales Inc Sweet Home Failure to submit fees and application to DMV within 30 days 2 1 $250
Dependable Car Company LLC Milwaukie Failure to submit fees and application to DMV within 30 days 2 4 $1,000
(1 YR Probation) Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 6 $6,000
Karhouse Auto Finance LLC dba Eugene Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 2 5 $5,000
Karhouse Auto Finance Failure to satisfy interest within 15 days 3 6 $6,000
Failure to pay consignor within 10 days 1 1 $500
Failure to submit fees and application to DMV within 30 days 2 33 $8,250
Keith and Brian Enterprises LLC dba 5th Gear Motorz Portland Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 1 $1,000

Miracle on 6th St LLC The Dalles Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 4 $4,000
Jones 5 Auto Sales Inc Corvallis Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 1 2 $2,000
M and N Dealerships IX LLC dba McLoughlin Chrysler Jeep Fiat Milwaukie Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 12 $12,000

All Star Auto Sales Inc Sweet Home Purchasing vehicle dealer knows or should have known has been stolen 1 1 $1,000
(1 YR Probation) Failure to maintain proper records 1 2 $500
NexGen Investments Inc Portland Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 1 7 $7,000
(3 YR Suspension) Failure to satisfy interest within 15 days 1 1 $1,000
Erik McKeachie dba Quality Cars of Bend Bend Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 1 3 $3,000

Royal D Kropf dba  Diamond K Sales  Halsey Failure to submit application/fees to DMV for purchaser within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
Kevin C Griffi th dba G’s Auto Sales Tangent Failure to allow an administrative inspection 1 1 $1,000
(3 YR Suspension)
Ervin Latinscics Portland Failure to provide means of public contact at main business location 1 1 $250
(3 YR Suspension) Failure to display an exterior sign 1 1 $250
Failure to display dealer certifi cate in publicly accessible manner at main location 1 1 $250
Failure to maintain the original dealer records at the main business location 1 1 $250
False statement of material fact in any DMV document 1 5 $500

Lot 99 LLC Milwaukie Failure to furnish title within 90 days 1 1 $1,000
JJs Auto Wholesale Inc dba Northwest Auto Exchange Milwaukie Failure to furnish title within 90 days 3 1 $1,000

Lot 74 LLC Portland Failure to secure proof that consignor was a registered owner/ legal owner/ lessor 1 1 $1,000
Failure to have terms of consignment agreement in writing or provide copy to consignor 1 1 $1,000
Ramon E Deardorff dba Siuslaw Automotive and Towing Florence Acting as a vehicle dismantler without a current dismantler certifi cate 1 1 $5,000

Jose Deonate-Jimenez Portland Acting as a vehicle dealer without a current dealer certifi cate 1 10 $25,000
Michael R Cary Oakridge Acting as a vehicle dealer without a current dealer certifi cate 1 9 $22,500

“AS-IS” IS NOT ALWAYS A DEFENSE TO AN UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES CLAIM

I often get calls from people that buy a car with a material defect and try to return the car to the dealer.  The dealer then informs the consumer they bought the car “As-Is.”   The dealer will often note that the consumer signed an As-Is clause prior to the purchase of the car.  This often deters consumers that may have a  valid claim against the dealer.  However, these As-Is clauses don’t always protect the dealer from liability.  Below is a modified draft from a recent motion I filed in Court on the issue:

As a licensed Automobile dealer, XXX cannot use an “As Is” clause to engage in Unlawful Trade practices.  XXXX advertised the car as 1) having keys, and 2) the costs of repairs were $0.00. Ross Dec. Ex. 4.  The As-Is Clause noted on defendant’s Exhibit D relates to Mr. XX purchase of the car directly from dealer.  Therefore, this transaction is no different than a consumer purchasing a vehicle at a local Oregon car dealership that falsely advertised a vehicle and failed to disclaim material defects.

As a result, dealer cannot disclaim its obligations under the UTPA (ORS 646.608) or Fraud. A similar issue was addressed in Hinds v. Paul’s Auto Werkstatt, Inc., 107 Or App 63 (1991), rev. den., 311 Or. 643, (1991)). In Hinds, seller defendant sold  XXX a vehicle that had been in an accident, but had been repaired.  Seller defendant claimed because it used a standard “buyer’s guide” with a standard “As-Is” clause it was protected from a UTPA claim for failure to disclose known material defects. The trial court found for the defendant, stating that the “clear intent” of the buyer’s guide “is to make certain that a buyer purchasing a used car ‘as is’ is aware of the full consequences of the agreement.” Id. at 65 n. 3. However, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument and reversed the trial court, stating because 16 CFR§455.2 “The FTC As-Is Rule”  is silent as to “disclosure of known defects” the UTPA requirement that a seller disclose defects that it knew of or should have known of is not affected. Id. at 65.

In Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc. the defendant argued that it was protected by an “As-Is” clause and a broad interpretation of ORS 646.608(1)(t) would “effectively nullify” a car dealer’s ability to use an “As-Is” clause. Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc. 156 Or App 257, 270 n. 9 (1998), rev’d in part on other grounds,331 Or. 537, (2001).  The court disagreed, stating that an “As-Is” clause “calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain there is no implied warranty” whereas “ORS 646.608(1)(t) addresses the failure to disclose known material defects.” Id.

Furthermore, the Oregon Attorney General has promulgated rules related to Unlawful Trade Practices for Oregon Vehicle Dealers.  Two subsections of OAR 137-020-0020 (3) relate to Unlawful Trade Practices by vehicle dealers.  The Rules note:

(o) Disclosure of Material Nonconformities and Defects — A dealer or broker shall disclose existing material nonconformities and defects about which the dealer or broker knows or negligently disregarded when the dealer or broker should have known, prior to sale or lease of a motor vehicle;

 

OFFICIAL COMMENTARY: Unless explicitly disclosed prior to a sale or lease, a motor vehicle that is offered for sale or lease to the public is represented, either directly or by implication, to be roadworthy when it is sold, to have an unbranded title and to have no undisclosed material defects. The dealer is in a superior position to inspect and determine the condition of a vehicle prior to marketing the vehicle. It is an easy matter, through a number of industry and internet sources, for a dealer or broker to review a vehicle’s title, damage and ownership history. The intent of this rule is to conform its applicability to the maximum extent permitted by ORS 646.608 and the holding in State ex rel. Redden v. Discount Fabrics, Inc., 289 Or 375, 615 P2d 1034 (1980): “Under the terms [of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act] a defendant is liable for misrepresentations made negligently, without evidence that it was attended by either conscious ignorance or reckless indifference to its truth or falsity, whereas evidence that a misrepresentation was made negligently is insufficient in an action for common law fraud. In other words, the term ‘willful,’ as defined by (646.608), requires no more than proof of ordinary negligence by a defendant in not knowing, when it should have known, that a representation made by him was not true.” ORS 646.608 (2) states: “A representation under subsection (1) of this section or ORS 646.607 may be any manifestation of any assertion by words or conduct, including, but not limited to, a failure to disclose a fact.”

 

This rule does not change the existing laws regarding warranties on used vehicles nor does it place any new requirements on dealers or brokersDealers and brokers should understand, however, that simply because they comply with the FTC “As-Is” rule it does not relieve them of their obligation to disclose material defects they knew or should have known about. A dealer is not required to guarantee, warrant or represent that a used vehicle will not have any mechanical problems or undetected material defects once the vehicle is sold. Further, a dealer need not create an exhaustive list of every ding, paint scratch, fabric tear or discoloration clearly visible upon inspection by an average consumer. Examples of negligent disregard of some things that should put a dealer on notice and trigger its duty to disclose might include, but is not limited to, a large pool of oil or antifreeze under the vehicle, dark colored smoke coming from an exhaust pipe, water stains on carpet or doors, a different color paint than the body under the hood or in the trunk or tires that are worn very unevenly.

(p) False or Unsubstantiated Representations — A dealer or broker may not make a misrepresentation or a false or incomplete statement of fact in conjunction with the sale or lease of a motor vehicle, or any other representation or statement which the dealer or broker does not have sufficient information upon which a reasonable belief in the truth of the representation could be based;

OAR 137-020-0020 (3) (o) (p) emphasis added

Here, XXX is a licensed Oregon Dealership.  Dealer advertised a vehicle with keys and $0.00 damages and sold plaintiff a car without keys and with roughly $40,000.00 in undisclosed damage.  As noted in the Hinds, Parrott, and OAR 137-020-0020 (3) (o) and (p), this type of conduct is expressly prohibited by the Unlawful Trade Practices Act and is not precluded by other statutes.   To hold otherwise, would allow every used car dealer, or merchant, to flagrantly violate the UTPA and hide behind an “As Is” clause.  As a result, there is a material issue of fact relating to whether or not this “As Is” clause shields dealer from UTPA liability.

BUSHING SCAMS, YO-YO SALES, AND SPOT DELIVERY OF VEHICLES

I often get frantic calls from people that recently purchased and financed a vehicle.  These people are asking for help because the dealer is claiming the consumer must return to the dealership and sign additional financing documents with terms less favorable to the consumer.   Consumers are confused and angry when they learn the financing fell through and the dealer no longer has their trade-in to return to them.   Most of the time these consumers are victims of a bushing scam.  These bushing scams are also known as “spot delivery” or yo-yo sales.

Here is the way bushing scams typically work.  The dealer will sell a person a car and offer to finance the vehicle.  The consumer signs financing paperwork and takes the vehicle home.  Usually the consumer is under the impression the financing is complete and the vehicle is theirs.   Unbeknownst to the consumer, after the consumer leaves the lot the dealer is still attempting to find a finance company to finance the vehicle.  Consumers may receive credit denial letters in the mail, but think it is in error because the dealer told them the vehicle was financed.  Eventually, the dealer contacts the consumer and informs them financing could not be obtained.  The scam is complete when the dealer has the consumer agree to new less favorable financing terms for the vehicle.  This often results in the consumer paying a higher interest rate and putting an additional down-payment down on the vehicle.

The dealer benefits from this transaction because the consumer is usually under the impression the vehicle was theirs the day they drove it off the lot.  Consumers have often put money into the vehicle to buy things like floor mats, a stereo, or other items.  As a result, they feel trapped and will sign new less favorable financing terms.  Additionally, dealers may inform the consumer that their trade-in has been sold and the dealer does not have “authority” to refund their down-payment.  These are frustrating issues for consumers and practitioners alike.  However, in Oregon there are laws to protect consumers in these situations.

Below is a list of questions and answers to assist practitioners and consumers that are facing a spot delivery issue:

Is Spot Delivery Legal In Oregon? Yes, but dealers must comply with ORS 646A.90 and 137-020-0020 (3).  These requirements allow dealers to make an offer to sell or lease a vehicle to a consumer that is subject to future acceptance by a lender.  ORS 646A.90 (2)

How long does a dealer who spot delivers a vehicle have to obtain financing for the vehicle? A dealer must find financing for the vehicle under the exact terms negotiated between the dealer and consumer within 14 days after the date on which the buyer takes possession of the vehicle. ORS 646A.90 (3) (a)

What happens to a Consumer’s trade-in in a spot delivery deal?  In a spot delivery deal, the dealer cannot sell or lease the consumer’s trade-in before the dealer has received final approval of funding from the lender. ORS 646A.90 (3) (b) 

Can a dealer offer to obtain financing for a vehicle knowing that the financing will not be approved?  No, a dealer cannot spot deliver a vehicle to a consumer unless the dealer has a “reasonable basis to believe the consumer could qualify for the terms of financing quotedat the time of delivery.” 137-020-0020 (3) (x)  This is a powerful rule that consumers with horrible credit can use when the dealer initially has them sign a retail installment contract or lease with a low interest rate and little money down.

Does a dealer that fails to finance a spot delivered vehicle have to tell a person why the financing fell through?  Yes, If a dealer spot delivers a vehicle and fails to obtain financing under the original terms, the dealer cannot make a misrepresentation regarding why the consumer does not qualify for the original financing terms or misrepresent why the transaction cannot be completed under the original terms. 137-020-0020 (3) (y)  This rule prohibits dealers from calling the consumer back to the lot to sign new less favorable financing terms, even after the consumers original terms were approved by the lender.

What does the dealer have to do if they cannot obtain financing for the vehicle under the original terms?  A dealer that spot delivered a vehicle to a consumer and later learns the consumer does not qualify for the original terms must do the following prior to offering, negotiating, or entering into new terms for the purchase or lease of the vehicle:

  1. Inform the consumer the consumer is entitled to have all items of value received from the consumer as part of the transaction, including any trade-in and down payment, returned to the consumer.

 

  1. If the consumer is physically present when the dealer informs the consumer that the consumer does not qualify for the terms offered, the dealer must return all items received from the consumer as part of the transaction. The dealer must have a refund check and the Trade-In keys immediately available.

 

  1. If the dealer informs the consumer by telephone, text, e-mail, letter, or other means without the consumer present, that the consumer did not qualify for the terms offered. The dealer must clearly disclose the consumer’s right to receive the immediate return of all items of value, i.e. trade in and down payment, when the consumer returns the vehicle.  The consumer must have the actual ability to obtain these items of value and the dealer cannot simply inform them of their right to receive these items back. The dealer must have a refund check and the Trade-In keys immediately available.  Dealers usually have a difficult time complying with this law as they usually sell the consumers trade-in prior to obtaining the financing.

Dealers shall inform consumers of these options and cannot hold the trade-in and down payment for ransom to have the consumer enter into a less favorable financing agreement.  The Commentary 137-020-0020 (3) (z)  makes it clear, “The consumer has an absolute right to walk away from the deal if the original offer is not going to be honored.”  137-020-0020 (3) (x)See Also, ORS 646A.90 (4)

In a failed Spot Delivery, can the dealer charge the consumer for vehicle damage and the mileage the consumer put on the vehicle?Yes, but only if the offer or contract to sell the vehicle provided in writing that the buyer is liable for: the fair market value of damage, excessive wear and tear, or loss of the motor vehicle while the vehicle is in the consumer’s possession.  Additionally, if, within 14 days of that date the buyer takes possession of the vehicle the seller sends notice to the buyer by first class mail that financing is unavailable, the dealer may charge for mileage the buyer put on the vehicle.  ORS 646A.90 (4) (b) explains how the mileage is computed and notes, “The [mileage] charge may not exceed the rate per mile allowed under federal law as a deduction for federal income tax purposes for an ordinary and necessary business expense.” ORS 646A.90 (4) (b).

The above list is not exhaustive as many other statutory violations often occur during bushing scams.  However, each situation is unique and these statues and rules are helpful in guiding the practitioner and consumer who is facing a spot delivery issue.  ORS 646A.90  and 137-020-0020 (3) do not explicitly state a consumer has a right of action to sue under these statutes and rules.  However, a creative practitioner can use these laws as a basis for a claim for relief.  If you have any questions feel free to contact Portland Oregon Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.

Please remember the law is constantly changing and you should refer to the statute and applicable case law before relying on any of the information in this post.