Cornell v. Robinson Ford Sales
Plaintiff and appellant Robert Cornell (plaintiff) brought this action against Robinson Ford (defendant), alleging violation of California's Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA; Civ. Code, 2981 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated).[1] Additionally, he claims the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; 1750 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code,
17200 et seq.) were violated by way of the predicate ASFA nondisclosure violations. Plaintiff's vehicle purchase contract from defendant allegedly misrepresented the actual purchase/financed price of the new vehicle, by improperly calculating it with respect to the actual cash value of his other vehicle that was traded in as part of the transaction, but on which he still owed a larger loan balance. (In such a case, the existing loan value on the vehicle that was traded in exceeds its current cash value; see Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140.) The purpose of such a practice is allegedly to make the purchase contract more attractive to lenders who may consider taking assignment of the contract, or to achieve a certain monthly payment for the customer. The order is reversed with directions to grant class certification and to conduct appropriate further proceedings.
Comments on Cornell v. Robinson Ford Sales