AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff hired the Defendant and his now-deceased co-defendant to supply equipment and construction services for the build-out of the Plaintiff's restaurant space. The Defendant misrepresented himself as a licensed contractor and performed the duties of a contractor without proper licensure. This misrepresentation led to the Plaintiff prevailing at trial on a claim under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA) due to the Defendant's knowing and intentional misrepresentation regarding his licensure (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant's knowing and intentional misrepresentation of his licensure status as a contractor violated the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA), as the Defendant performed contractor duties without being licensed (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the construction project was not subject to the UPA because the work involved improvements to realty, arguing that since the work was incorporated into real estate, it did not constitute "goods" or "services" under the UPA (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's construction work for the Plaintiff falls under the purview of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA) despite the Defendant's argument that the work, being incorporated into real estate, does not constitute "goods" or "services" as defined by the UPA (paras 2, 9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the Defendant's conduct did violate the UPA (para 24).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, J., concurred by Julie J. Vargas, J., and Jacqueline R. Medina, J.:
  The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the UPA does not apply to his work on the Plaintiff's restaurant because it involved improvements to realty and thus did not constitute "goods" or "services" under the UPA. The Court held that the UPA does apply to the sale of "goods" and "services" and that the Defendant's work, including supplying equipment and performing construction duties, falls within these definitions. The Court emphasized the UPA's broad application to protect consumers and its liberal interpretation to facilitate its remedial purposes. The Court found that the Defendant supplied "personal estate" in the form of equipment and performed services as a contractor, thus engaging in an "unfair or deceptive trade practice" under the UPA. The Court also distinguished this case from others cited by the Defendant, noting that those cases involved completed real estate transactions, which are not analogous to the services and goods provided by the Defendant in this case (paras 3-23).