Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-207 (2026)

Unintentional violations

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any case arising under this chapter, no liability shall be imposed upon a supplier who shows by a preponderance of the evidence that (i) the act or practice alleged to be in violation of § 59.1-200 or 59.1-200.1 was an act or practice of the manufacturer or distributor to the supplier over which the supplier had no control or (ii) the alleged violation resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid a violation; however, nothing in this section shall prevent the court from ordering restitution and payment of reasonable attorney's fees and court costs pursuant to § 59.1-204 B to individuals aggrieved as a result of an unintentional violation of this chapter.

1977, c. 635; 1995, cc. 703, 726; 2008, c. 485.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1995–2015 · leading case: Am. Online, Inc. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Online, Inc. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “the rights of public entities, acting through public counsel, to seek orders restraining violations of the VCPA for the benefit of the public.”

Ballagh v. Fauber Enters., Inc., 773 S.E.2d 366 (Va. 2015). · cites it 2× “Next, the defendants note that Code § 59.1-207 provides an affirmative defense in certain circumstances, and expressly provides a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof for that defense.”

Humphrey v. Leewood Healthcare Ctr., 73 Va. Cir. 346 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “” Va. Code § 59.1-207(A). The VCPA does not define that term.”

Nigh v. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., 143 F. Supp. 2d 535 (E.D. Va. 2001). “CODE § 59.1-207. Moreover, Koons’ correction of the sales contract resulted in lower payments for Nigh, so Nigh suffered no loss; therefore, Nigh cannot maintain an action under the VCPA.”

Tucker v. Ford Motor Co., 72 Va. Cir. 420 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “, (Count 6) Violation of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, Va. Code § 59.1-207 et seq., (Count 7) Revocation of Acceptance, (Count 8) Actual Fraud, and (Count 9) Constructive Fraud.”

Sykes v. Brady-Bushey Ford, Inc., 69 Va. Cir. 219 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Va. Code § 59.1-207, while providing a defense based upon bona fide error by the supplier, also explicitly reserves remedies for “individuals aggrieved as a result of an unintentional violation of this chapter.”

Clark v. Ourisman Fairfax, Inc., 59 Va. Cir. 129 (2002). · cites it 2× “Virginia Code § 59.1-207 (1995) (emphasis added). The Court instructed the jury on this very point.”

Commonwealth v. Car Pawn of Virginia, Inc., 37 Va. Cir. 412 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-207 . Lastly, the Attorney General may collect monetary relief or seek injunctive relief in addition to collecting attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Va.”

Nelson v. Cowles Ford Inc (4th Cir. 2003). “These offers may have been offers to cure the improper tender, but because they differed in material ways from the original sales con- tract, they did not constitute a conforming tender, and thus, Nelson 4 Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-207 (Michie 2001) (restitution and attorney’s fees…”

— Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-207(A) — 1 case

Humphrey v. Leewood Healthcare Ctr., 73 Va. Cir. 346 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2007). “” Va. Code § 59.1-207(A). The VCPA does not define that term.”

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.