|
4022 REVIEW DENIED Allegations that defendant represented it would charge only for ordered products and make refunds on unordered products, when its practice was to ship unordered products to sales representatives and refuse to grant credit for returned products, were sufficient to state a claim under the Unfair Competition Law based on deception, but not based on violation of a federal law that prohibits mailing unsolicited merchandise, because the federal statute does not apply to an ongoing contractual relationship involving sales of the same kind of merchandise; the allegations created sufficient likelihood of finding there was an ascertainable class and predominant common questions of law or fact to withstand demurrer to a putative class action.CitationBLAKEMORE v SUPERIOR COURT (Avon Calling) 129 CA4 36 [See: B&PC 17200; 39 USC 3009; CelTech v LA Cellular 20 C4 163, T/AT 5/99; Pastoria v Nationwide 112 CA4 1490, T/AT 12/03; Kipperman v Academy Life 554 F2 377]
|
|
