Plaintiff in Lemon Law Case Who Won Car In Raffle Properly Awarded $5000—CA – Metropolitan News-Enterprise

Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Wednesday,
August 22, 2018

 

Page 1

 

Plaintiff in Lemon Law Case Who Won Car In Raffle Properly
Awarded $5,000—C.A.

Amount Encompassed Upgrades, Taxes, Fees He Paid

 

By a MetNews
Staff Writer

 

The Court of
Appeal for this district held yesterday that a judge properly allowed a jury
verdict for $5,000 to stand in a case where the plaintiff contended his $52,000
automobile was a “lemon” because he did not testify as to payments made by him
in any greater sum than what was awarded.

Although
the jury was not told that plaintiff Joseph Poulose won the automobile in a
raffle, Poulose was unable to testify that he paid the ticket price of
$51,812.05 for the vehicle.

In
his action against  Ford Motor Company and Vista Ford in Woodland Hills,
Poulose argued that he should be allowed to return the automobile to the
dealership and get its value, in cash.

The
decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Keosian not to disturb the
verdict was affirmed by Div. Five yesterday, in an opinion by a judge of that
same court, Dorothy C. Kim, sitting on assignment. Kim has been appointed as a
member of that panel, with the appointment awaiting confirmation.

She
wrote:

“The
jury verdict was not against the law. The verdict form provided to the jury
required that if the jury found a breach of the implied warranty, it should
calculate restitution. Restitution was defined for the jury as ‘the amount
paid’ by plaintiff. The amount paid would also include any charges for
transportation and manufacturer-installed options, and sales tax, use tax,
license fees, registration fees, and other official fees. There were no
instructions regarding cancellation or rescission of a sale contract.

“Plaintiff
asserts that the only remedy was restitution of the full amount of the invoice,
or $51,812.05. We disagree. Substantial evidence supports the jury award of
restitution. The jury could reasonably infer from plaintiff’s testimony that he
paid sales tax and registration and his silence regarding any other payments,
that plaintiff had only paid sales tax and registration. This would make the
conclusion that the amount paid was $5,000 consistent with [the]… instruction
on restitution.”

The
case is
Poulose
v. Ford Motor Co
., B281693.

Representing
Poulose were Hallen D. Rosner, Shay Dinata-Hanson and Arlyn L. Escalante of the
San Diego firm of Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, and Lawrence J. Hutchens of
downtown Los Angeles’s Hutchens & Hutchens. Ford’s lawyers were  M. Kevin
Underhill and Amir M. Nassihi of the San Francisco office of Shook Hardy &
Bacon.

 

Copyright
2018, Metropolitan News Company

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by: