ZANAKIS-PICO V. CUTTER DODGE, INC.
47 P.3d 1222 (2002)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Pico (Ps), customers, sued Dodge (D), automobile dealer, for various statutory violations related to false advertising and deceptive trade practices. The Court granted in part, and denied in part, D's summary judgment motion. Ps and D appealed.
FACTS: D placed a newspaper ad for $0 cash Down!*' At the bottom were five lines of text, including two asterisks, in a much smaller type-face. The first asterisk was followed by the qualification: '$0 Cash Down on all Gold Key Plus pymnt. vehicles.' The main body of the advertisement, between the introductory text and the fine print, included pictorial depictions of and specific terms for fourteen different model vehicles. In each instance, the advertisement stated the number of vehicles of the particular model available at the stated terms or price and listed what appear to be their inventory identification numbers. Five of the models were listed with a cash price, while nine were simply advertised for '$0 Cash Down,' subject to varying monthly payments over various periods of time. Four of the models with a cash price could also be had for '$0 Cash down' and a monthly payment plan. The first and most prominently displayed vehicle was a 'NEW '97 GRAND CHEROKEE LAREDO,' priced at '$229 Month* 24 Mos. $0 Cash Down or $20,988.' A second asterisk in the fine print at the bottom of the advertisement read: 'Rebate and APR on select models, not combinable, prices incl. $400 Recent College Grad, $750-$1000 Loyalty Rebate on Grand Cherokees & Loyalty Rebate on Caravans & Grand Caravans on pymnts & prices & all other applicable rebates. On approved credit. All pymnts/prices plus tax, lic. & $195 doc fee.' Ps alleged that they had traveled to D's lot in response to the advertisement. One of the advertised Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredos was still available, and Ps test drove the vehicle. Ps stated they wanted to buy but were informed that they would have to make a down payment of $1,400.00. The sales agent explained that the '$0 cash down/$229 per month' offer was only available to recent college graduates who were entitled to a 'loyalty rebate.' Ps left without purchasing the vehicle. Ps sued D on a number of different grounds on a number of different amended complaints. Ps prayed for general, special, and punitive damages, as well as for specific performance (i.e., the sale of the vehicle to them as advertised). D denied that the advertisement was false or misleading. After approximately eight months of discovery, D filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to damages. The circuit court ruled as a matter of law that the Ps were not entitled to damages for emotional distress or 'benefit-of-the-bargain' in connection with their HRS 480-2 claim, but denied D's motion without prejudice with respect to other damages. D moved for summary judgment. The court rules as a matter of law, Ps had failed to establish damages. The circuit court ordered Ps to file a more definite statement regarding such claims for relief as remained in their third amended complaint. D filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint or, in the alternative, for a directed verdict. The court granted it, ruling that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that D was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all of Ps' claims. D's request for costs of $3,781.25 were allowed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment