the transaction. Jordan v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 2004 VT 27, ¶ 5, 176 Vt. 465, 853 A.2d 40. Given the VCFA’s underlying purpose of protecting the public from unfair commercial practices, we have construed the elements of a claim under the Act using an objective standard. Inkel v. Pride Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc., 2008 VT 6, ¶ 10, 183 Vt. 144, 945 A.2d 855. Thus, a consumer may establish the first element by showing that “the representation or omission had the tendency or capacity to deceive a reasonable consumer.” Id. (quotation omitted). The protective nature of the Act is further reflected by the fact that a consumer need not show intentional misrepresentation or deception to establish liability. Id.; see also Winton v. Johnson & Dix Fuel Corp., 147 Vt. 236, 244, 515 A.2d 371, 376 (1986) (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted). ¶ 11. Even under our
holding that the relevant intent is not the intent to return ultimately but the intent to return to the united states within a relatively short period holding that extrinsic offense evidence was admissible to prove intent where the prosecutor stated that she anticipated the defendant would deny his intent to be involved in the charged offense and defense counsel did not even mention that he would refrain from contesting the intent issue holding that the only showing of intent required for a vcea claim is the intent to do the act involved holding that a wide application was required given the legislative intent for the remedial provisions of the act holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent