Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 487
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 487-1 (2026)

]  Legislative intent

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     [§487-1]  Legislative intent.  The public health, welfare and interest require a strong and effective consumer protection program to protect the interests of both the consumer public and the legitimate business person.  Toward this end, a permanent office of consumer protection is created to coordinate the services offered to the consumer by various state and county agencies, together with private organizations, and to aid in the development of preventive and remedial programs affecting the interest of the consumer public. [L 1969, c 175, §1; gen ch 1993]

 

Case Notes

 

  A duty of care may be established by statute if a legislative enactment lays down requirements of conduct, and provides expressly or by implication that a violation shall entail civil liability in tort; as this section states the purpose behind the creation of an office of consumer protection but does not provide any standard governing conduct or any provision which prescribes a duty, this section does not create nor is indicative of a standard of care in a claim for negligence.  128 H. 423, 290 P.3d 493 (2012).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2012–2018 · leading case: Arquette v. State., 290 P.3d 493 (Haw. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arquette v. State., 290 P.3d 493 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 39× “On appeal to the ICA, Petitioner argued that the court erred (1) in concluding that Respondents established probable cause to initiate the 2004 prosecution of Petitioner, (2) in deciding that HRS § 487-1 does not create an actionable duty of care to support a claim for…”
Nakamoto v. Kawauchi., 418 P.3d 600 (Haw. 2018). · cites it 8× “15 In Arquette , a plaintiff subject to an investigation by the Office of Consumer Protection (OCP) brought a negligent investigation claim against OCP, arguing that HRS § 487-1 16 created a duty of care in OCP to the *617 subjects of its investigations.”
Cycle City, Ltd. v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 81 F. Supp. 3d 993 (D. Haw. 2014). · cites it 2× “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 487-1. Under the HMVILA, Cycle City is a distributor and dealer and Harley-Davidson is a manufacturer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.