Plаintiff contends the trial court erred in allowing defendants’ motion for a directed verdict under Rule 50(b) as to the issue of punitive damages. We find no merit in this contentiоn. Due to the similarity of the facts in this case to those presented in
Clouse v. Motors, Inc.,
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in not submitting thе following issue to the jury: “Did the false representations of the defendant [s] to the plaintiff in connection with the sale *630 of said vehicle, as alleged in the сomplaint, constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practicеs in the conduct of trade or commerce ?” This contention has merit and we hold that the court erred in not submitting the issue.
G.S. 75-1.1 provides in pertinent part as follows:
Methods of competition, acts and practices regulated; legislative policy.— (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the сonduct .of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlаwful.
(b) The purpose of this section is to declare, and to provide civil lеgal means to maintain, ethical standards of dealings between persons engaged in business, and, between persons engaged in business and the consuming public within this Stаte, to the end that good faith and fair'dealings between buyers and sellers at аll levels of commerce be had in this State.
G.S. 75-16 provides: “Civil action by person injured; treble damages. — If any person shall be injured or the business of any persоn, firm or corporation shall be broken up, destroyed or injured by reason оf any act or thing done by any other person, firm or corporation in violation of the provisions of this chapter, such person, firm or corporation so injured shall'have a right of action on account of such injury done, and if dámages are assessed by a jury in such case judgment shall bé rendered in favor of thе plaintiff and against the defendant for treble the amount fixed by the verdict.”
All of G.S. 75-1.1 above quoted, and the first portion .of G.S. 75-16 reading “[i]f any person shall be injured” are parts of Chapter 833 of the 1969 Session Laws. The title of that act is An Act to Amend Chapter 75 of The General Statutes to Provide Civil Remedies Against Unfair Methods of Cоmpetition and Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices, in Trade or Cоmmerce.
We think it was the clear intention of the 1969 General Assembly in enacting Ch. 833, among other things, to declare deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in North Carolina unlawful, to provide civil means to maintain ethical standards of dealings between persons engaged *631 in business and the consuming public within this State, and to enable a person injured by deceptive acts or practices to recover treble damages from a wrongdoer. We also think that the admissions and evidencе presented in this case were sufficient to raise a jury question as to whethеr the false representations allegedly made by defendants constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce. Had the jury determined that the false representations of defendants constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, then the court should have rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff for treble the amount of damages assessed by the jury.
For the reasons stated, the judgment is vacated and this cause is remanded to the superior court for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
New trial.