Cited by

§§ 44-1521 to -1534, grants a private cause of action if a plaintiff proves “a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and the [plaintiff’s] consequent and proximate injury.” Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., A.R.S.

See John Munic Enters., ¶ 10 (App. 2014) (fraudulent inducement); Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., (consumer fraud); Haisch v. Allstate Ins.

Not having asked for special verdicts, [a defendant] will not be heard to challenge the validity of the general verdict.” Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., PUCKETT v. MANGHRAM, et al. Decision of the Court 341 (App. 1983).

¶13 To sustain a private cause of action under Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act, a plaintiff must prove “a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury.” Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., (emphasis added).

Likewise, U-Haul’s reliance on Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., for the proposition that the instructional error at issue was harmless, is misplaced.

See Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., (providing that this Court will uphold a general verdict when several counts, issues, or theories are submitted to the jury and if evidence on one count, issue, or theory is sufficient to sustain the verdict).

See Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., (a general verdict will be upheld if evidence on one count, issue or theory is sufficient to sustain the verdict.”); -52 ¶¶ 25-26 (App. 2005).

Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.

¶28 Section 44-1522 provides a private cause of action for misrepresentations, concealment, or omissions of material fact made “in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise.” (stating that the Act “provides an injured consumer with an implied private cause of action against a violator of the act”).

& , (citations omitted); see also Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., , (similarly recognizing CFA’s purpose to protect against “disproportionate bargaining power”).

Rather, to maintain a private cause of action under the act, a plaintiff need only prove “a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury.” Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.

“The elements of a private cause of action under the [A]ct are a false promise or misrepresentation made in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise and the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury.” Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.

See Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., -42 , -87 (App.1983) ("request for special verdicts would have been the proper method of assuring that the award of damages was not partly based on a count which had been erroneously submitted to the jury”).

Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., , (finding that “[a] request for special verdicts would have been the proper method of assuring that the award of damages was not partly based on a count which had been erroneously submitted to the jury.”) Thus, even assuming that the Farmers should have been precluded from claiming som

16: See Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. , , (showing proximate injury required for claim of fraudulent misrepresentation); , (action for breach of fiduciary duty requires showing causation of damages); Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc. , , (element of consumer fraud action is showing of “consequent and proximate injury”) .

Appellants rely on Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., P.2d 83 (App. 1983).

233, 238 , see also Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., -42 , -87 (App.1983) (appellant could not challenge a general verdict because of ample evidence to sustain the award at least for the consumer fraud count).

Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., , Flower World, 122 Ariz. at 321 , 594 P.2d at 1017 .

Corp., in which the court of appeals concluded that a trial court erred in requiring a party “to show a violation of the consumer fraud statute before they could introduce evidence which, if accepted by the jury, would tend to prove that very violation.” , see also Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., *100 , (allowing evidence of past deceptive sales practices to be used to prove alleged deceptive sales practices).

At oral argument in this court, Bruce Church contended that, even if we found the statutory claims were improperly submitted to the jury, we could affirm the general verdict if we found no error regarding the tort claim, relying on Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc.

“[A] general verdict will be upheld when several counts, issues or theories are submitted to the jury if evidence on one count, issue or theory, is sufficient to sustain the verdict.” Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., , citing Reese v. Cradit, 12 Ariz.App.

See Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., , (Howard, C.J., dissenting).

See Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., , (evidence of past deceptive sales practices relevant to whether those practices are currently used and to issue of punitive damages).