Lumber 2, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
2011 OK 74
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Lumber 2, Inc. is a retail store purchasing goods for resale to customers.
- At a trade show, Lumber 2 agreed to buy eleven reconditioned Champ 10,000 welder/generators from ITW/Hobart for $1,600 each, hoping to sell at about $2,000.
- ITW later refused to deliver the recons, stating it would harm its existing dealer territory; ITW sold the recons to Atwood's at $1,800 each.
- Lumber 2 then purchased new Champ 10,000s at retail, advertised them, and was pressured by ITW to raise prices for new products sold to Lumber 2’s area retailers.
- Lumber 2 claimed ITW discriminated in pricing and engaged in conduct violative of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA) and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act (OARA).
- The trial court awarded Lumber 2 damages on breach of contract and treble damages on OCPA and OARA; COCA reversed the OCPA/OARA damages, sustaining breach of contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lumber 2 is a 'consumer' under OCPA | Lumber 2 is a buyer for resale and should be a consumer | A purchaser for resale is not a consumer under OCPA; consumption is required | Lumber 2 is not a consumer under OCPA |
| Whether the term 'consumer' requires use of goods by the purchaser | Purchasing for resale is within consumer protection aims | Only actual consumption/use makes a party a consumer | Plain meaning of 'consumer' requires use/consumption; resale does not satisfy |
Key Cases Cited
- Naylor v. Petuskey, 834 P.2d 439 (Okla. 1992) (statutory interpretation and plain meaning governs)
- Keck v. Oklahoma Tax Comm., 108 P.2d 162 (Okla. 1940) (plain meaning of statutory terms)
- Holdbert v. Echeveria, 744 P.2d 960 (Okla. 1987) (statutory construction guidance)
- Walls v. American Tobacco Co., 11 P.3d 626 (Okla. 2000) (context of consumer protection claims)
- Warren Technology, Inc. v. Hines Interests Limited Partnership, 733 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. App. 1999) (non-consumers can be victims under similar acts)
- Big H Auto Auction, Inc. v. Saenz Motors, 665 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1984) (business purchasers may be treated as consumers under certain Acts)
- Dreier Co., Inc. v. Unitronix Corp., 527 A.2d 875 (N.J. Super. 1986) (merchants may be treated as consumers under NJCFA depending on transaction)
- Guyana Telephone & Telegraph Co., Ltd. v. Melbourne International Communications, Ltd., 329 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2003) (consumer status under Florida act considered in context)