"I Won the Lottery!"

Every unhappy car buyer believes that he or she is entitled to a free car. Usually that belief ends up being modified a bit when a court is called upon to apply the rules and determine the damages to which a successful plaintiff is actually entitled under the law.

This “I won the lottery” mindset was illustrated in a recent case, but in this case, the trial court didn’t get the memo about following the law. The appellate court ended up correcting the trial court’s bad decision.

Harry Wildy bought a used 1997 Cadillac from M&R Auto Sales, Inc. Wildy immediately experienced problems with the engine overheating, and M&R was unable to fix the problem. Wildy ended up driving the car 5,420 miles, using the car only for short trips at slow speeds, as he had been advised to do by a consultant he hired.

Eventually, Wildy sued M&R for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The trial court found that M&R made material misrepresentations at the time of sale and, as the Consumer Fraud Act permits, awarded Wildy three times his actual damages, for a total damages award of $21,265, plus attorneys’ fees. Ouch.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, but only as to the calculation of damages. The trial judge’s calculation of damages, and the damages awarded at trial, included the cost of work performed on the car, towing charges, rental car charges and the purchase price of the Cadillac.

“Whoa!” said M&R. “Didn’t Wildy rack up more than 5,000 miles on our Caddy? Wasn’t that worth something to him? If we have to return the entire price of a car he got 5,000 miles of use from, isn’t he recovering twice for the same injury?”

The appellate court affirmed the judge’s award of the cost of work performed on the car, towing charges, rental car charges and attorneys’ fees. However, the appellate court agreed with M&R and found that the “judge’s award of the entire purchase price went beyond making [Wildy] whole, as in addition he had limited use of the car and retained the vehicle.”

The appellate court noted that, on remand, instead of using the entire purchase price, the trial judge must calculate damages based on the difference between the purchase price and the value of the car.

You might want to tell your lawyer to keep a copy of the Wildy decision in his Bill Blass briefcase, so he can whip it out the next time the plaintiff begins to get that “I won the lottery!” look in his eye.