SALEM, Ore. (Legal Newsline) - A woman who paid $19.99 for a fleece zip at an Eddie Bauer outlet store can sue the company because it falsely said it was discounted 50% from the “list price” of $39.99, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled, rejecting arguments the plaintiff also had to show there was something wrong with the quality of the item.
Susan Clark sued Eddie Bauer in federal court after buying the fleece and a “Microlight Jacket” that had a $99.99 price tag discounted to $49.99. Clark claimed Eddie Bauer violated the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act by saying the items were discounted when in fact they were distributed only to outlet stores and had never been sold at the higher prices.
Eddie Bauer, supported by retail industry groups, argued Clark couldn’t claim an “ascertainable loss” as required under Oregon law because she got exactly what she paid for at a price she found acceptable. She couldn’t sue over her “subjective disappointment” at learning the items weren’t the bargain she believed them to be, the retailer argued.
A district court dismissed her case and Clark appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which asked the Oregon Supreme Court to clarify whether an “ascertainable loss” included representations about a product’s price history, but not the quality of the product itself. The Oregon Supreme Court answered yes in a June 29 decision.
Under a “purchase price” theory, the state high court ruled, consumers can argue they were misled into buying something because they thought it was a bargain. Clark “paid money to defendants for articles of clothing that she would not have bought had she known their true price history,” the court concluded. “The money that plaintiff is out as a result is her `loss.’”
The court didn’t offer an opinion on whether Clark’s theory could be expanded to include a class action on behalf of other consumers who were similarly unhappy about the bargains they thought they obtained at the outlet mall.