Deceptive Business Practices

1. Law
2. Georgia Code
3. Crimes and Offenses
4. Forgery and Fraudulent Practices
5. Fraud and Related Offenses
6. Deceptive Business Practices

1. A person commits the offense of using a deceptive business practice when in the regular course of business he knowingly:
   1. Uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or any other device for falsely determining or recording any quality or quantity;
   2. Sells, offers, or exposes for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; or
   3. Takes or attempts to take more than the represented quantity of any commodity when as buyer he furnishes the weight or measure.
2. Any person who commits the offense of using a deceptive business practice shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(Code 1933, § 26-1706, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)

Cross references.

- Deceptive or unfair trade practices or consumer transactions, § 10-1-370 et seq.

Misrepresentation of quantity of commodities in commercial transactions, and misrepresentation or deception in pricing by weight, measure, or count, §§ 10-2-7,10-2-8.

Law reviews.

- For article discussing available remedies in this state for deceptive trade practices, in light of the model Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law proposed in Georgia in 1973, see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 281 (1973). For article explaining the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, proposed in Georgia in 1973, see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 409 (1974). For article, "Individual Accountability for Corporate Crime," see 34 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 335 (2018). For note discussing criminal penalty for deceptive business practices, see 25 Emory L.J. 445 (1976).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Corporate liability.

- Although O.C.G.A. § 16-9-50 defining the crime of deceptive business practices does not contain in the statute's definition any indication of a legislative purpose to impose liability on a corporation, the state is not required to allege the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 16-2-22 in accusations under § 16-9-50, but only to prove that the defendant corporation or managerial agent authorized deceptive practices. State v. Military Circle Pet Ctr. No. 94, Inc., 257 Ga. 388, 360 S.E.2d 248 (1987).

Cited in State ex rel. Ryles v. Meredith Chevrolet, Inc., 145 Ga. App. 8, 244 S.E.2d 15 (1978).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 79 Am. Jur. 2d, Weights and Measures, § 40 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 35 C.J.S., False Pretenses, § 14. 94 C.J.S., Weights and Measures, § 28 et seq.

ALR.

- Genuine making of instrument for purpose of defrauding as constituting forgery, 41 A.L.R. 229; 46 A.L.R. 1529; 51 A.L.R. 568.

False representation in business transaction as within statute relating to "confidence game," 56 A.L.R. 727.

Criminal responsibility for fraud or false pretenses in connection with home repairs or installations, 99 A.L.R.2d 925.

When statute of limitations begins to run against criminal prosecution for embezzlement, fraud, false pretenses, or similar crimes, 77 A.L.R.3d 689.

Fraud actions: right to recover for mental or emotional distress, 11 A.L.R.5th 88.

Use of fraud or trick as "constructive breaking" for purpose of burglary or breaking and entering offense, 17 A.L.R.5th 125.

Download our app to see the most-to-date content.