Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Miller v. Colortyme, Inc.

518 N.W.2d 544 (1994)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Miller v. Colortyme, Inc.

Minnesota Supreme Court

518 N.W.2d 544 (1994)

Facts

D.E.F. Investments, Inc. (D.E.F.) (defendant) operated several rent-to-own businesses in Minnesota. Under its rent-to-own contracts, D.E.F. offered weekly or monthly leases for consumer goods. D.E.F.’s customers could renew the leases after each rental period ended. If a customer renewed a lease for a specified number of rental periods, the customer would acquire ownership of the leased good. Delilah Miller and Craig Stenzel (plaintiffs) were D.E.F. customers who had entered into several rent-to-own transactions with D.E.F. A number of those transactions ended with Miller and Stenzel obtaining ownership of the leased goods. Under each contract, Miller and Stenzel could acquire the leased good for a total price that was much greater than the value of the good. For example, Stenzel entered into an agreement with D.E.F. to lease a television worth $470. Stenzel could acquire the television after paying 18 monthly payments of approximately $48, totaling over $850, or 78 weekly payments of $12.75, which totaled almost $1,000. Miller and Stenzel filed a class-action lawsuit against D.E.F. in Minnesota court, arguing that D.E.F. had violated several consumer-protection laws, including state usury laws. Minnesota’s usury law applied to consumer-credit sales and prohibited contracts that imposed an interest rate of over 6 percent. D.E.F. moved to dismiss Miller and Stenzel’s usury claim, arguing that the usury statute did not apply because its rent-to-own transactions were not consumer-credit sales. The district court granted summary judgment for Miller and Stenzel, holding that the rent-to-own transactions were usurious consumer-credit sales. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the rent-to-own transactions were not consumer-credit sales and were not usurious. Miller and Stenzel appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tomljanovich, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership