NRS
598.0923 “Deceptive trade practice” defined.
1. A person engages in a “deceptive trade
practice” when in the course of his or her business or occupation he or she
knowingly:
(a) Conducts the business or occupation without
all required state, county or city licenses.
(b) Fails to disclose a material fact in
connection with the sale or lease of goods or services.
(c) Violates a state or federal statute or
regulation relating to the sale or lease of goods or services.
(d) Uses coercion, duress or intimidation in a
transaction.
(e) Uses an unconscionable practice in a
transaction.
(f) As the seller in a land sale installment
contract, fails to:
(1) Disclose in writing to the buyer:
(I) Any encumbrance or other legal
interest in the real property subject to such contract; or
(II) Any condition known to the
seller that would affect the buyer’s use of such property.
(2) Disclose the nature and extent of
legal access to the real property subject to such agreement.
(3) Record the land sale installment
contract pursuant to NRS 111.315 within
30 calendar days after the date upon which the seller accepts the first payment
from the buyer under such a contract.
(4) Pay the tax imposed on the land sale
installment contract pursuant to chapter 375
of NRS.
(5) Include terms in the land sale
installment contract providing rights and protections to the buyer that are
substantially the same as those under a foreclosure pursuant to chapter 40 of NRS.
2. As used in this section:
(a) “Land sale installment contract” has the
meaning ascribed to it in paragraph (d) of subsection 1 of NRS 375.010.
(b) “Unconscionable practice” means an act or
practice which, to the detriment of a consumer:
(1) Takes advantage of the lack of
knowledge, ability, experience or capacity of the consumer to a grossly unfair
degree;
(2) Results in a gross disparity between
the value received and the consideration paid, in a transaction involving
transfer of consideration; or
(3) Arbitrarily or unfairly excludes the
access of a consumer to a good or service.
(Added to NRS by 1985,
2256; A 1999,
3282; 2009,
1118; 2021,
1346)
Notes of Decisions
Wensley v. First National Bank of Nevada (2012)
nvd · cites it 4×
“Second Cause of Action for Violation of Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act Plaintiffs second cause of action for violation of the Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 , also fails as a matter of law.”
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. (2018)
njd
“…url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=Nev.%20Rev.%20Stat.%20%C2%A7%20598.0923"> Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 (3). Under Section 598.0923(3), the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act does not appear to require the plaintiff must plead reliance, nor do Defendants identify…”
Sobel v. Hertz Corp. (2010)
nvd · cites it 4×
“” Nev. Rev.Stat. § 598.0923(3). In light of the substantial uncertainty surrounding section 482.”
GEICO Corp. v. Autoliv, Inc. (2018)
mied
“…url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=Nev.%20Rev.%20Stat.%20%C2%A7%20598.0923"> Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 . In this case, GEICO has alleged that "Defendants' unlawful conduct constitutes deceptive trade practices in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes § 598.0923 [ ]…”
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig. (2018)
njd
“…url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=Nev.%20Rev.%20Stat.%20%C2%A7%20598.0923"> Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 (3). Under Section 598.0923(3), the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act does not require the plaintiff to plead reliance, nor do Defendants identify any case-law…”
Betsinger v. D.R. Horton, Inc. (2010)
nev
“, NRS 598.0923(2), which, under common law, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, see Bulbman, Inc.”
Karl v. Quality Loan Service Corp. (2010)
nvd · cites it 2×
“Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Under NRS Chapter 598 Plaintiff alleges violations of NRS section 598.0923(1) and (3) based on QLS’ conducting a business without a required license and violating a state or federal statute or regulation relating to the sale or lease of goods…”
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig. (2018)
njd
“…url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=Nev.%20Rev.%20Stat.%20%C2%A7%20598.0923"> Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 (3). Under Section 598.0923(3), the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act does not require the plaintiff to plead reliance, nor do Defendants identify any case-law…”
POOLE VS. NEV. AUTO DEALERSHIP INV.'S, LLC (2019)
nev · cites it 34×
“fact is that the vehicle was in a prior accident" and that "[t]he duty to disclose under NRS 598.0923 does not extend to the entire effect of the accident, such as a price breakdown of every part and service provided as listed in the ACE.”
Poole v. Nev. Auto Dealership Invs. (2019)
nevapp · cites it 34×
“fact is that the vehicle was in a prior accident" and that "[t]he duty to disclose under NRS 598.0923 does not extend to the entire effect of the accident, such as a price breakdown of every part and service provided as listed in the ACE.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1) — 2 cases
Karl v. Quality Loan Service Corp. (2010)
nvd
“Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Under NRS Chapter 598 Plaintiff alleges violations of NRS section 598.0923(1) and (3) based on QLS’ conducting a business without a required license and violating a state or federal statute or regulation relating to the sale or lease of goods…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(a) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(b) — 7 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(c) — 12 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(d) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(e) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(2) — 14 cases
Betsinger v. D.R. Horton, Inc. (2010)
nev
“, NRS 598.0923(2), which, under common law, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, see Bulbman, Inc.”
POOLE VS. NEV. AUTO DEALERSHIP INV.'S, LLC (2019)
nev
“fact is that the vehicle was in a prior accident" and that "[t]he duty to disclose under NRS 598.0923 does not extend to the entire effect of the accident, such as a price breakdown of every part and service provided as listed in the ACE.”
Poole v. Nev. Auto Dealership Invs. (2019)
nevapp
“fact is that the vehicle was in a prior accident" and that "[t]he duty to disclose under NRS 598.0923 does not extend to the entire effect of the accident, such as a price breakdown of every part and service provided as listed in the ACE.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(2)(b)(2) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(3) — 13 cases
Sobel v. Hertz Corp. (2010)
nvd
“” Nev. Rev.Stat. § 598.0923(3). In light of the substantial uncertainty surrounding section 482.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(b) — 1 case
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.