Portland Environmental Lawyer and Real Estate Lawyer Blog

Have you purchased an automobile based on its advertised fuel economy?  Have you found that when you actually take the car out on the road the average gas mileage is much less than advertised?  If so, you might be able to sue your automobile manufacturer in small claims court for misleading advertising.  The attorneys at Chenoweth Law Group can help you assess your environmental litigation options, and then help you prepare the evidence and arguments necessary to argue a small claims court case. 

Recently, a California woman successfully sued Honda in small claims court for misleading her regarding the gas mileage her 2006 Civic Hybrid vehicle would achieve.  When Heather Peters -- a former lawyer -- purchased her car, the vehicle was advertised as getting up to 50 miles per gallon (mpg). On the road, however, Peters' hybrid achieved far less fuel economy than predicted, struggling at times to even break 30 mpg.  Instead of remaining a party to larger class action suits offering similarly dissatisfied customers $200/claim and other rebates, Peters decided to withdraw from the class action process and take on Honda herself in small claims court.

Although the suit at first seemed frivolous to many, Peters recently prevailed in a California Superior Court, winning nearly $10,000 in a judgment against Honda.  Honda plans to appeal, and will argue that advertised fuel economy standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not them.  Although Peters' judgment is largely inconsequential to Honda and other car manufacturers standing alone, if the judgment is upheld on appeal, auto manufacturers might be faced with similar lawsuits brought by car owners around the country. 

Thus, if you have purchased a vehicle that has achieves less-than-advertised fuel economy and are interested in learning more about your environmental litigation options, please call Chenoweth Law Group at 503-821-7809 to schedule a consultation.

As the nuances of day-to-day business operation become more complex, Chenoweth Law Group is here to help you avoid unnecessary business & commercial litigation.  Everyday, business professionals send and receive dozens, if not hundreds, of emails.  In 2009, approximately 247 billion email messages were sent every day (ABC News).  For many professionals, the volume of work emails sent and received can be overwhelming.  As professionals attempt to wade through the daily email morrass as quickly as possible, they should be aware that even quick, seemingly innocuous emails can lead to the unintentional formation of a binding contract.  Especially as state and federal laws became more e-commerce friendly, it is important to undertand what types of communication can potentially bind parties.

In 2000, Congress enacted the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act), 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq. (2006).  The purpose of the E-SIGN Act is to facilitate the use of electronic records and signatures in e-commerce, and to recognize the validity and binding effect of e-contracts.  The Act emphasizes that a contract cannot be denied legal effect simply because e-records were relied upon in the formation of the contract.  The Act also preempts all conflicting state laws, while at the same time exempting from wills, trusts, and family law matters from coverage.  In 2001, Oregon also adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) - a model state law meant to further facilitate electronic transactions within the state. ORS ch. 84.

In Oregon, a contract is formed when the parties have a "meeting of the minds" regarding the essential terms of the exchange, and objectively manifest their intent to the enter into a contract.  See, e.g., Rick Franklin Corp. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp., 207 Or. App. 183, 190, 140 P.3d 1136 (2006), rev. den., 342 Or. 116, 149 P.3d 138 (2006).  After the E-SIGN Act and UETA, even simple, everyday email exchanges might ultimately manifest a "meeting of the minds," even if that is not what was intended.  For example, ambiguous communication with customers or B2B partners that might seem like a simple exchange of information can be the basis for a contract if employees are not careful.

The attorneys at Chenoweth Law Group are experienced with the nuances of e-contracting.  Our attorneys can help your business draft policies, disclaimers, and practices likely to avoid unintended contracting, and the expense related to any business & commercial litigation arising from email exchanges.  Our attorneys can also arm you with the knowledge to train your employees for how to avoid unintentional e-contracts.  If you would like to learn more, please call Chenoweth Law Group at 503-821-7809 to schedule a consultation.

A Vancouver-based properties company that manages an apartment community in Oregon is not playing by the rules, according to the Oregon tenant-landlord law. For this, a resident at that apartment complex has brought civil litigation against the company, and the lawsuit just recently gained class action status.

The issue centers on the method in which the company issues its forms of security deposits at Stark Street Crossings apartments in Oregon. Prospective residents are asked to either fork over $2,000 for a refundable security deposit, or pay $350 that they will not get back as the premium for a bond. Not only do residents permanently lose the $350, but the New Jersey-based company that issues the bonds can pursue residents for further money if damages to the apartment tally over $350. The company does not offer any cheaper alternatives than these two unattractive offers.

Residents of Southeast Portland are involved in land use litigation to challenge a decision made by the Portland City Council that would allow some particularly smelly forms of trash to sit at a transfer station in their Lents neighborhood.

In the fall, the city council voted to pass an expansion of its Recology Oregon Material Recovery program. Under this expansion, the program would accept food scraps and temporarily hold them at a transfer station located near Southeast Foster Road and 101st Avenue in the Lents neighborhood. Worried about the added volumes of traffic and the potential odors of the waste, residents in the Lents neighborhood filed an appeal with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals recently. With that appeal, residents are asking that the program not store food waste at that location.