CACI 4710 Consumers Legal Remedies Act—Affirmative Defense—Bona Fide Error and Correction (Civ. Code, § 1784)
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
4710 Consumers Legal Remedies Act—Affirmative Defense—Bona Fide Error and Correction (Civ. Code, § 1784)
[Name of defendant] is not responsible for damages to [name of plaintiff] if [name of defendant] proves both of the following:
1.The violation[s] alleged by [name of plaintiff] [was/were] not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error even though [name of defendant] used reasonable procedures adopted to avoid any such error; and
2.Within 30 days of receiving [name of plaintiff]’s notice of violation, [name of defendant] made, or agreed to make within a reasonable time, an appropriate correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy of the [specify product or service].
Directions for Use
Different correction requirements apply to class actions. (See Civ. Code, § 1782(c).)
Sources and Authority
•Consumers Legal Remedies Act: Defenses. Civil Code section 1784.
•“Damages are not awardable under the CLRA if the defendant proves its violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error despite reasonable procedures to avoid such an error, and remedies the violating goods or services.” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 471 [178 Cal.Rptr.3d 784].)
•“[Defendants] also contend [plaintiff] cannot avoid the safe harbor provided for a reasonable correction offer under the CLRA by recasting her claim as a violation of the UCL. This is incorrect. [Plaintiff]’s UCL claim was based directly on evidence of fraudulent advertising practices and was not dependent on finding an underlying violation of the CLRA. The CLRA expressly states that the effect of a reasonable correction offer is to prevent the consumer from maintaining an action for damages under Civil Code section 1780, but the remedies of the CLRA are cumulative and the consumer may assert other common law or statutory causes of action under the procedures and with the remedies provided for in those laws.” (Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 841, 852 [226 Cal.Rptr.3d 12].)