Trade Regulation

ORS 646A.276
Sale of gift card that expires, declines in value, includes fee or does not give option to redeem

(1)

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section and ORS 646A.278 (Requirements for sale of gift card that expires), a person may not sell a gift card:

(a)

That has an expiration date;

(b)

That has a face value that declines as a result of the passage of time or the lack of use of the card;

(c)

That has a fee related to the card, including, but not limited to, an inactivity fee, a maintenance fee or a service fee; or

(d)

That does not give the cardholder the option to redeem the card for cash when the face value of the card has declined to an amount less than $5 and the card has been used for at least one purchase. For purposes of this paragraph, “cash” means money or a check.

(2)

Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to:

(a)

Gift cards that have been given for free or less than full consideration to a person or entity as a donation or as part of a promotional offer;

(b)

Gift cards issued by an entity that provides services that are subject to the federal Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); and

(c)

Gift cards redeemed to an online account for the purchase of goods or services.

(3)

Redemption under subsection (1)(d) of this section may be obtained only from the provider of goods or services indicated on the gift card regardless of whether the provider is the issuer of the gift card. [2007 c.772 §2; 2011 c.336 §1]
§§ 646A.600 to 646A.628

Law Review Citations

52 WLR 451 (2016)

§§ 646A.400 to 646A.418

(formerly 646.315 to 646.375)

Notes of Decisions

Where purchaser fails to provide notice of condition requiring repair, presumption does not arise that repair time exceeding 30 business days demonstrates inability of manufacturer to conform vehicle. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Repair time exceeding 30 business days as evidence of inability to conform vehicle applies only to presently existing defect. Pavel v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 127 Or App 16, 870 P2d 856 (1994)

Law Review Citations

19 WLR 329 (1983)

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS