Rondeau v. Girard Motors, Inc.

Full title: JAN M. RONDEAU ET AL. v. GIRARD MOTORS, INC. ET AL

Court: Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Windham, Geographic Area 11 at Willimantic

Date published: Nov 14, 2007

2007 Ct. Sup. 19553 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)

Opinion

No. CV 06 4003768 S

November 14, 2007

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

KEVIN E. BOOTH, JUDGE.

Finding of Fact

1. The plaintiffs, Jan and Mathias Rondeau, reside in Pomfret Center, Connecticut.

2. Girard Mitsubishi is a registered dealer in new and used motor vehicles.

3. On or about July 22, 2004, plaintiffs went to Girard Mitsubishi in Groton, Connecticut to purchase a motor vehicle for personal, family and household purposes.

4. Plaintiff, Jan Rondeau, ultimately agreed to purchase a 2001 Mitsubishi Montero from defendant pursuant to a retail installment contract that was subsequently assigned to a third party.

5. The plaintiffs did not prove the allegation in Paragraphs Five and Six of the First through Fifth Counts that Girard agreed to accept a Galant as a trade and payoff the remaining balance owed on the contract.

6. The plaintiffs offered no proof that Girard Motors unreasonably utilized or drove the Galant. Further, the plaintiff admitted they dropped off the Galant at Girard Mitsubishi and did not intend to use it, drive it or rent it.

7. The plaintiff did not prove the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the First Count that their "credit has been adversely affected" by their decision to leave the Galant with Girard.

8. The plaintiff, Jan Rondeau, did prove the allegation in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Fifth Count that the 2001 Montero was advertised for a price of $11,995 on the window of the vehicle and that the vehicle was sold for more than the advertised price. The court found the testimony of Mr. Rondeau credible on the issue of a price on the window.

9. The court did not find credible the testimony of Mr. Boursiquot that the dealership does not write prices on the windshield.

10. Although Mr. Rondeau testified that the price increase was related to a deficiency in the value of a proposed trade in vehicle, the defendant denies that there was any trade so that Mr. Rondeau must have been mistaken in this regard.

11. Connecticut Regulations § 42-110b-28 contain the following:

(a)(3) Advertisement (including the terms advertise and advertising) means any oral, written or graphic statement made by a new car dealer or used car dealer in any manner in connection with the solicitation of business and includes, but is not limited to statements and representations made in a newspaper or other publication or on radio or television or contained in any notice, handbill, sign, billboard, poster, bill, circular, brochure, pamphlet, catalogue or letter.

(b)(1) It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a new car dealer or used car dealer to fail to sell or lease, or refuse to sell or lease, a motor vehicle in accordance with any terms or conditions which the dealer has advertised, including, but not limited to, the advertised price.

(b)(10) It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a new car dealer or used car dealer to advertise a sale or promotion in connection with the sale or lease of motor vehicles without clearly and conspicuously disclosing in such advertisement the expiration date and any other conditions of such sale or promotion, including whether the supply of vehicles is limited.

12. Household Automotive Finance Corp. is a foreign corporation, now known as HSBC Auto Finance, Inc., that regularly conducts business as a sales finance company within Connecticut. Household regularly accepts assignments of retail installment contracts from Connecticut dealerships, such as Girard.

Conclusion of Law

1. The court finds for the defendant Girard Motors, Inc. On Counts 1, 2, 3, 4.

2. The court finds for the defendant HSBC Auto Finance, Inc. on Count 6. The plaintiffs' loan to defendant HSBC has been paid off.

3. The court finds for the plaintiff Jan Rondeau on Count 5, failure to sell for the advertised price. Girard posted a price of $11,995 on the window of the Montero. Girard sold the Montero to the plaintiff for $14,360. There is no evidence, nor even a claim, that Girard terminated the availability of the quoted price in accordance with Reg. 42-110b-28-(b)(10).

See Emmanuelli v. Merriam Motors, Inc., 203 Conn.Super. LEXIS 2301 [35 Conn. L. Rptr. 407]

Award of damage

The court awards to the plaintiffs against the defendant Girard the following:

$141.00

Overpayment $2,365.00 Tax on overpayment $2,506.90

The court awards double the damages in the amount of $5,013.80 plus costs and a reasonable attorneys fee. If the plaintiff and the defendant Girard cannot agree on a reasonable attorney fee, the court will hold a hearing on the amount of the fee.