Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
692 N.W.2d 226 (2005)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In October 2000, Jessica Mayberry (plaintiff) purchased a new 2001 Jetta from a dealer for Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) (defendant). The car came with a two-year limited warranty. The Jetta’s cash price was $17,800. With tax, title, and fees, the price was $18,526. Mayberry financed her purchase, and according to her, the total financed price was $22,548. Soon after Mayberry took possession, the Jetta experienced problem after problem, including engine problems. The car was serviced and repaired free of charge under the warranty. Mayberry attempted to revoke her acceptance of the car, but Volkswagen refused. In June 2002, Mayberry sued Volkswagen, claiming breach of warranty among other claims. Mayberry submitted an affidavit stating her belief that the Jetta had been worth only $12,526 at the time she purchased it. While the lawsuit was pending, Mayberry traded in her Jetta for a 2003 Mazda priced at over $24,000. The Mazda dealership gave Mayberry a trade-in allowance of $15,100. At the time, the Jetta had 32,737 miles on it and a fair market value of $14,200. Volkswagen moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mayberry had not suffered any compensable damages because she had been able to trade in the Jetta for more than its fair market value. The trial court agreed with Volkswagen and dismissed Mayberry’s complaint. The court of appeal reversed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilcox, J.)
Concurrence (Wilcox, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.