Opinion
No. 01 C 8921
June 14, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff claims she contracted for an extended service contract on a vehicle she purchased from defendant and defendant did not purchase it. She also claims that she paid consider ably more than the price stated on the Monroney sticker, which included more items than she got, and that the only reason she knows that is that she complained months later to the manufacturer about the absence of a sticker, and then it was supplied. Defendant has furnished an affidavit stating that an extended service contract was purchased (although not from the same company or on the same terms previously represented). And it contends it can a vehicle for whatever the buyer will pay. It moves to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss is denied. Defendant concedes the extended service contract motion Is one for summary judgment, which was filed in lieu of an answer. It is premature. Perhaps defendant is right, but there has been no discovery and plaintiff is entitled to reasonable discovery before contending with a summary judgment motion. We are also not persuaded that a claim that charging a price well in excess of that stated on a Monroney sticker, without disclosing the sticker, is perfectly justifiable.