Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hikes v. McNamara Pontiac, Inc.
Citations: 510 So. 2d 1212; 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1996; 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9884Docket: No. 86-902
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 13, 1987; Florida; State Appellate Court
Evelyn Hikes filed a complaint against McNamara Pontiac, Inc. alleging fraudulent sale of a DeLorean for $21,785.25. She received a $16,000 trade-in allowance for her 1981 Corvette, financing $9,000 while retaining $7,000 as equity. During the litigation, Hikes traded the DeLorean for $11,400. The jury awarded her the full purchase price of $21,785.25. The trial court, finding fundamental error in jury instructions and the absence of a set-off, granted McNamara’s motion for a new trial unless Hikes accepted a remittitur reducing her damages to $3,385.00. This figure was calculated by deducting the trade-in value and the financed amount on the Corvette from the purchase price. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision for a remittitur but disagreed with its calculation, stating that the $11,400 received by Hikes included the $9,000 loan, resulting in double-dipping. The dissent argued that Hikes's revocation of acceptance was legally insufficient, but this issue had already been resolved by the jury in Hikes's favor and was not contested by McNamara. The court found no merit in McNamara's claims against Hikes for the full jury award or in its cross-appeal for a directed verdict on liability. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding liability for civil theft and the new trial unless Hikes accepted a remittitur of $10,385.25, ruling to reverse the original remittitur amount and remand for a new trial on fraudulent inducement. Judge Sharp concurred, while Judge Cowart dissented. McNamara did not contest the sufficiency of Hikes's revocation.