Consumer protection laws and Independent contractors

[Bwlf]

Can state consumer protection laws be applied to independent contractors?
specifically, I'm trying to make sense of Utah Code §13-11-3

(2) (a) "Consumer transaction" means a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other written or oral transfer or disposition of goods, services, or other property, both tangible and intangible (except securities and insurance) to, or apparently to, a person for:
(i) primarily personal, family, or household purposes; or
(ii) purposes that relate to a business opportunity that requires:
(A) expenditure of money or property by the person described in Subsection (2)(a); and
(B) the person described in Subsection (2)(a) to perform personal services on a continuing basis and in which the person described in Subsection (2)(a) has not been previously engaged.

Can a person hire an independent contractor to work for their business, who works ongoing, and apply the above definition? I'm trying to understand the legislatures intent of subsection (ii). Also, how does the "not previously engaged" clause modify this?

Thanks!

 

[justalayman]

Can state consumer protection laws be applied to independent contractors?
specifically, I'm trying to make sense of Utah Code §13-11-3

(2) (a) "Consumer transaction" means a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other written or oral transfer or disposition of goods, services, or other property, both tangible and intangible (except securities and insurance) to, or apparently to, a person for:
(i) primarily personal, family, or household purposes; or
(ii) purposes that relate to a business opportunity that requires:
(A) expenditure of money or property by the person described in Subsection (2)(a); and
(B) the person described in Subsection (2)(a) to perform personal services on a continuing basis and in which the person described in Subsection (2)(a) has not been previously engaged.

Can a person hire an independent contractor to work for their business, who works ongoing, and apply the above definition? I'm trying to understand the legislatures intent of subsection (ii). Also, how does the "not previously engaged" clause modify this?

Thanks!

Your argument fails before you even get to (ii)
"The person" isn't hiring anybody. The business is doing the hiring.

Consumer protection laws are meant to protect people, not business

 

[Bwlf]

Your argument fails before you even get to (ii)
"The person" isn't hiring anybody. The business is doing the hiring.

Consumer protection laws are meant to protect people, not business

Further down the statute says:
(5) "Person" means an individual, corporation, government, governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, cooperative, or any other legal entity.

 

[quincy]

Further down the statute says:
(5) "Person" means an individual, corporation, government, governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, cooperative, or any other legal entity.

Here is a link to the Consumer Sales Practices Act and its intent:

http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE13/htm/13_11_000200.htm

The law is designed to "protect consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable sales practices."

What are the specifics of your concern with the independent contractor?

 

[LdiJ]

Can state consumer protection laws be applied to independent contractors?
specifically, I'm trying to make sense of Utah Code §13-11-3

(2) (a) "Consumer transaction" means a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other written or oral transfer or disposition of goods, services, or other property, both tangible and intangible (except securities and insurance) to, or apparently to, a person for:
(i) primarily personal, family, or household purposes; or
(ii) purposes that relate to a business opportunity that requires:
(A) expenditure of money or property by the person described in Subsection (2)(a); and
(B) the person described in Subsection (2)(a) to perform personal services on a continuing basis and in which the person described in Subsection (2)(a) has not been previously engaged.

Can a person hire an independent contractor to work for their business, who works ongoing, and apply the above definition? I'm trying to understand the legislatures intent of subsection (ii). Also, how does the "not previously engaged" clause modify this?

Thanks!

You have something else that you need to worry about. Hiring someone on an ongoing basis may very well make them legally an employee, which you may not treat as an independent contractor.

 

[quincy]

You have something else that you need to worry about. Hiring someone on an ongoing basis may very well make them legally an employee, which you may not treat as an independent contractor.

I agree with this.

There are laws in Utah that govern independent contractors. It will be these laws that Bwlf needs to look to, and not consumer protection laws, when hiring an independent contractor to work for his business.

 

[Bwlf]

I agree with this.

There are laws in Utah that govern independent contractors. It will be these laws that Bwlf needs to look to, and not consumer protection laws, when hiring an independent contractor to work for his business.



(bumping spam off main board)

Ok, let's forget the independent contractor part of my original inquiry and focus instead on the application of consumer protection laws concerning the business opportunity mentioned in Utah Code §13-11-3-2(a)(ii). I'm trying to understand when that definition might be used. Any thoughts as to hypothetical examples of it's application would be appreciated!

 

[quincy]

Ok, let's forget the independent contractor part of my original inquiry and focus instead on the application of consumer protection laws concerning the business opportunity mentioned in Utah Code §13-11-3-2(a)(ii). I'm trying to understand when that definition might be used. Any thoughts as to hypothetical examples of it's application would be appreciated!

Is your question just to sate your curiosity, or do you have a real-life situation where you think this consumer protection law could apply?

 

[TigerD]

Sounds more like homework for a summer business class.

DC

 

[quincy]

Sounds more like homework for a summer business class.

DC

Bwlf has another thread with another question that sounds suspiciously like homework.

I guess maybe he should learn on his own how to navigate his way through the Utah Code (unless he expects someone from this forum to sit with him while he takes his exam).

 

[Bwlf]

Is your question just to sate your curiosity, or do you have a real-life situation where you think this consumer protection law could apply?

I'm not in school. I do appreciate forum members looking out for potential abuses as I agree students should do their own homework.

I've been studying thec UCSPA in relation to injuries I've suffered. At this time I don't need specific advice on the injuries but I'm trying to make sense of the applicability of the business opportunity provision. The legislative intent of 2(a)(ii) eludes me. Just as some of the replies above stated I thought this act would only be for consumers as in flesh and blood people outside of any business endeavor. One of my original theories involved independant contractors. I agree that ongoing work can indicate an employment relationship but that is only one of many factors to consider when looking at the legitimacy of an IC realationship. I asked to forget about the IC part of my initial question because classification of ICs is something I'm very familiar with having spent a lot of time working as one.

Since the definition of person is broad under the act, the only limitations of it's applicability are in 2(a)(ii).
It says "(i) primarily personal, family, or household purposes;" and that seems to be everyone's first understanding of these laws. I do wonder if you're running a small business that supports your entire livelihood if that would qualify here though it may be a stretch.

But what I'm really confused about is 2(a)(ii). It seems like a twisted set of provisions so I fail to understand why the legislature included it and who it protects. I've searched case law and while not a comprehensive search, I didn't see anything that appeared to clarify this.

I appreciate any thoughts on this.

 

[quincy]

Bwlf, below is a link to a pdf file of an article written by Parker Allred for the Utah Law Review in 2010.

The article, titled "From the BCS to the BS: Why 'Championship' Must Be Removed from the Bowl Championship Series," analyzes in part Utah's Consumer Sales Practices Act. You may find it informative.

http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/352/290