Legal Opinion
Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided October 26, 1998No. 24848PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Per curiam
This is a class action in which the trial court granted respondents (hereafter Buyers) summary judgment. The court ruled that appellant, Pacesetter Corporation, failed to comply with the attorney and insurance agent preference provisions of the South Carolina Consumer Protection Code (CPC). We affirm.
FACTS
Pacesetter is a Nebraska Corporation which sells aluminum windows, awnings, and doors, in South Carolina. Buyers in this case each entered into a “Retail Installment Sales Contract and Mortgage” to purchase products from Pacesetter, which was to be secured by a mortgage on their homes. The…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Paschal v. State Election CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
- State v. Buyers Service Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
- Camp v. Springs Mortgage Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- Hainer v. American Medical International, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Pressley v. Tupperware Long Term Disability PlanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
- State v. McKnightSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
- Ferguson v. Charleston Lincoln Mercury, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
- Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.