Consumer Sales Practices Act (1972) ORC 1345.01

[Parkerman]

Jurisdiction

Ohio

In part of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (1972) ORC 1345.01, it says:

Prohibits sellers from selling a product or service to a consumer they know cannot afford . . . the purchase.

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov...tecting-Consumers#Consumer_Sales_Practice_Act

Could someone explain to me what the above quote means? I've spent a lot of time on several search engines to search for that quote to find examples of it to make sure that I am understanding it correctly, but I couldn't find anything. Could someone elaborate a little bit more about this quote?

 

[adjusterjack]

See my response at:

Consumer Sales Practices Act (1972) ORC 1345.01

 

[zddoodah]

In part of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (1972) ORC 1345.01, it says:

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov...tecting-Consumers#Consumer_Sales_Practice_Act

Let's first keep in mind that your link is not to the actual statute. Your link is to the Ohio Attorney General's web site, which is not the law.

According to the AG's web site, ORC 1345.01 "[p]rohibits sellers from selling a product or service to a consumer they know cannot afford or substantially benefit from the purchase." However, if you read section 1345.01, you'll see that it says no such thing. Rather, section 1345.01 is nothing more than a collection of definitions. If we charitably assume that the AG is talking about section 1345.01, et seq., such that we should look at the sections that follow section 1345.01, I see nothing that supports the AG's conclusion. Section 1345.02 lists several unfair or deceptive acts or practices, but none of them sound anything like selling something to a consumer when the seller knows the consumer cannot afford or substantially benefit from the thing sold.

If we move down to section 1345.03, we get something that sort of sounds like this. Sub-section (A) says that no "supplier" "shall commit an unconscionable act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction," and sub-section (B) lists several things that are "taken into consideration" when determining whether an act or practice is unconscionable. Sub-section (B)(3) mentions the supplier having actual knowledge that the consumer could not "receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the consumer transaction," and sub-section (B)(4) mentions the supplier having actual knowledge "that there was no reasonable probability of payment of the obligation in full by the consumer." Note that "supplier" is defined in section 1345.01(C) to mean virtually anyone in the chain of supply of a consumer product or service.

To the extent the AG is interpreting section 1345.03 to mean what is written at its web site, I disagree (although I have not done any case research to see if any Ohio court has held that the two factors mentioned above are dispositive.

Could someone explain to me what the above quote means?

If the above did not answer your question, please let me know what's still unclear to you.