Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Zalnis v. Thoroughbred Datsun Car Co.

Colorado Court of Appeals
645 P.2d 292 (1982)


Facts

Christine Zalnis (plaintiff) purchased a vehicle from Linnie Cade, a salesman with Thoroughbred Datsun Car Company (Thoroughbred) (defendant). The president of Thoroughbred, C.S. Trosper (defendant), approved the sale based on representations made by Cade, which later were determined to be premised on erroneous calculations. Zalnis and Trosper had known each other for years. Additionally, Trosper knew that Zalnis had witnessed her husband’s suicide and that, since that time, she had been in a fragile emotional state. Zalnis took possession of the car that day and paid the balance of the purchase price two days later. Shortly thereafter, Trosper learned that the car had been sold at a $1,000 loss. Trosper instructed Cade to get Zalnis to pay the additional amount or have the car returned. Cade declined. Instead, another salesman, Marc Anthony (defendant) telephoned Zalnis and told her to return the car, because it was being recalled. Upon her arrival, Zalnis refused to turn over the car until she was told why the car was being recalled. Zalnis received no answer, and the car was taken from her. Zalnis demanded the immediate return of her car and telephoned her attorney. Trosper explained to Zalnis’ attorney that she had only gotten the good price on the car because she was sleeping with Cade. Additionally, Zalnis testified that Anthony yelled at her, called her a “whore,” followed her around the showroom, used abusive language, and grabbed her arm in a threatening manner. Zalnis filed suit against the defendants for outrageous conduct (sometimes called intentional infliction of emotional distress) and slander. Thoroughbred and Trosper moved for partial summary judgment on the outrageous conduct claim, which the trial court granted. Zalnis appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Kelly, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.