15 U.S.C. § 2306
Service contracts; rules for full, clear and conspicuous disclosure of terms and conditions; addition to or in lieu of written warranty
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2003–2012 · leading case: Tang v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 2007 WI App 134 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
Tang v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 2007 WI App 134 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “In concluding that it could and that Tang thus was entitled to attorney's fees under the Magnuson-Moss Act, the trial court first noted that a "curious thing about the statute" is that "most of the act concerns standards and rules regarding warranties," and that aside from…”
Dell, Inc. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 905 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “(a), (c)(5)(I); accord, 15 U.S.C. § 2306 (b).) We have no occasion here to consider whether Dell’s failure to separately state the price of its service contract is an inadequate disclosure of the contract’s terms or service charges.”
Vizcarra Pellot v. Ford Motor Co., 263 F. Supp. 2d 303 (D.P.R. 2003). “See 15 U.S.C.A. § 2306 . 7 . “The term 'warrantor' means any supplier or other person who gives or offers to give a written warranty or who is or may be obligated under an implied warranty.”
John William Carter v. Clinton Wells Killingsworth, 477 F. App'x 647 (11th Cir. 2012). “15 U.S.C. § 2306 (b). But a plaintiff may only file suit under the MMWA if the amount in controversy is $50,000 or more.”
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.