Second District Holds That Omission of Source of Base Price From Which Discount Taken Is Harmless
by charlesjung
- Image via Wikipedia
The Second District Court of Appeal, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor a Restoration Hardware, Inc. (RHI) for alleged misrepresentations of the price of RHI’s merchandise at its discount outlet stores. Heller v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., B215218, 2010 WL 3387506 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 30, 2010). Plaintiff alleged that RHI outlet stores engaged in a practice of misrepresenting the actual discounts given on furniture. Id. *1. Plaintiff contended she purchased at an outlet store an advertised “Del Mar” outdoor chair, which had an original retail price of $750 from which a percentage discount was taken, when in fact the price in RHI’s catalog and on the internet at its website was $685. Id. Plaintiff’s complaint stated five causes of action: violations of the UCL, the FAL, the CLRA, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud and deceit.
The court affirmed, holding:
[I]n spite of its failure to disclose the price from which the discount was taken, the net effect of the omission could not have caused plaintiff any harm. There was no evidence in the record that RHI ever sold its catalog or website merchandise without charging delivery.
Judges and Attorneys
Before Presiding Justice Robert M. Mallano and Justices Victoria Gerrard Chaney and Jeffrey W. Johnson. Justice Johnson wrote the opinion for the court.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hon. Carl J. West.
Kalcheim Law Group, Mitch Kalcheim and Helen Kim for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Morrison & Foerster, David F. McDowell and Samantha P. Goodman for Defendant and Respondent.
CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION LAW 