Johnson v. General Motors Corp. Chevrolet Motor Division
Kansas Supreme Court
668 P.2d 139 (1983)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
On October 7, 1980, John and Joan Johnson (plaintiffs) traded in their truck for a new Chevrolet truck manufactured by General Motors Corporation (GMC) (defendant). After the trade-in value was deducted, the Johnsons paid $4,202.10 for the new truck. On the way home from the dealership, the Johnsons began experiencing trouble with the new truck. They had the problems fixed, but the troubles continued. On November 30, 1980, the Johnsons revoked their acceptance of the deal and tried to return the truck for a full refund. GMC declined. The Johnsons filed suit, seeking to revoke their acceptance of the purchase. The Johnsons continued to use the truck while the suit was pending. In all, the Johnsons drove the truck 14,619 miles after revoking their acceptance of the sale. At trial, GMC introduced a Federal Highway Administration (FHA) guide regarding the costs of owning a car or truck. The guide stated that a truck similar to the Johnsons’ would cost approximately 33.2 cents per mile to own. The trial court ruled that the Johnsons could revoke their acceptance, but that GMC was entitled to a setoff of $4,702.94 due to the Johnsons’ continued use of the truck after their revocation. The trial court did not award the Johnsons prejudgment interest. The Johnsons appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lockett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.