Hinkle v. Rockville Motor Co., Inc.
Maryland Court of Appeals
278 A.2d 42, 262 Md. 502 (1971)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Hinkle (plaintiff) bought a car from Rockville Motor Co., Inc. (Rockville) (defendant) that Rockville claimed was a new car. Nearly three months later, Hinkle discovered that the car had been in an accident the previous year. Hinkle brought suit against Rockville alleging that it knew of the accident, but fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the car. Hinkle sought $100,000 in damages. Rockville moved for a directed verdict, and the trial court granted the motion, reasoning that Hinkle did not produce evidence of the car’s actual value at the time of sale and thus a jury had no basis for a determination of damages for out-of-pocket losses. Hinkle appealed on the grounds that he presented evidence of the amount that it would cost to fix the damages from the accident and return the car to new condition.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barnes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
