The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) found in 15 U.S.C.A. section 1601, et. seq. was enacted to “protect consumers and promote the ‘informed use of credit.'” Washington v Americquest Mortgage.Co., 2006 WL 1980201, *6 (N.D.Ill., 2006). As such, TILA requires creditors to conspiciously disclose certain terms and costs information prior to a credit transaction. Id. This information includes, but is not limited to, the annual percentage rate and “finance charge,” order of disclosures, and use of different terminology. 15 U.S.C.A. section 1632(a).
Proudly Serving Honolulu, Maui, Kauai and the Big Island
The tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage was examined by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Robert’s Hawaii School Bus, Inc. v Laupahoehoe Transp. Co., Inc.
In certain specific cases, a Plaintiff may bring a claim if someone has interfered with a prospective business advantage. The Hawaii Supreme Court has addressed the required elements of this tort in Hawaii as:
We have represented clients alleged to have been involved in a “theft of a corporate opportunity.” As most people know, “a corporate officer or director is under a fiduciary duty of individual loyalty, good faith and fair dealing in conducting corporate business.” Racine v Weisflog, 477 N.W.2d 326, 329 (Wis App., 1991). One of the primary duties is that a corporate officer cannot divert assets of the corporation and use them for the officer’s personal advantage.
Today we had a hearing concerning diversity jurisdiction. In general, federal courts only have jurisdiction over two types of cases; (i) cases concerning a federal question (meaning that the case is based on federal law), and (ii) diversity cases. § 28 U.S.C. , § 28 U.S.C. .
Choosing the right Hawaii personal injury lawyer is one of the most important decisions a client will make when seeking compensation for injuries.
If you are searching for a personal injury lawyer in Hawaii, there are certain factors you should look for to make sure that you choose the personal injury lawyer that is right for you:
Occasionally, individual defendants try to hide assets by placing them in a corporation. In such cases, the attorney is forced to attempt to “pierce the corporate veil”. The rule at common law was that, “officers, directors or shareholders of a corporation are not personally liable for the tortious conduct of the corporation or its other agents, unless there can be found some active or passive participation in such wrongful conduct by such persons.” Cahill v. Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp., 56 Haw. 522, 526 (1975).
Last month we received an arbitration award and judgment in excess of Six Million Dollars, against a mainland contractor on behalf of a mainland couple victimized while building their dream home on the island of Kauai. We persuaded the Arbitrator to award our clients treble damages pursuant to H.R.S. 480-2, the Hawaii Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In awarding treble damages, the Arbitrator found that the contractor committed several Unfair and Deceptive Acts including the following:
Over the past few weeks, I have addressed the sale of goods in Hawaii under the Uniform Commercial Code. Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code has been adopted in every state (except Louisiana) and governs contracts for the sale of goods. Hawaii has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. Obviously, the express terms of a contract for the sale of goods will control the manner in which the sale is to be carried out. If the seller tenders goods that are not timely rejected by the buyer, the buyer is obligated to make payment pursuant to the terms of the sales contract.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC“), a breach of a sales contract may occur when a seller delivers non-conforming goods to the buyer. It is the buyer’s burden of proof to establish this breach once goods are accepted. H.R.S. § 490:2-601. Upon delivery and acceptance of goods, the buyer is obligated to pay the contract price to the seller. H.R.S. § 490:2-401.