Hunter v. Haun , 210 Kan. 11 ( 1972 )

Fromme, J.,

concurring: Under the narrow issue presented to this court I agree that the county attorney was properly restrained from proceeding under the “Consumer Protection Act”. The definition in K. S. A. 1969 Supp. 50-601 (b) of “merchandise” does not include real estate located in Kansas, and the complaint lodged with the county attorney did not fall within the purview of those practices declared unlawful by K. S. A. 1969 Supp. 50-602.

The statute 50-602, which defines the practices rendered unlawful, in pertinent part reads:

“Unlawful practices. The act, use or employment by any person of anv deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice: . ■ .

The definition of “merchandise” contained in 50-601 (b) includes the word “services” without restriction.

The opinion of the court should not be construed to extend beyond the narrow confines of the issue decided. In a future case which encompasses an unlawful practice set forth in 50-602 and which involves the sale of the “services” of a real estate broker I would afford a buyer the protection of the act even though the “services” of the broker may have related to a sale of real estate in Kansas.