Cohen v. AM General Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the purpose of the transaction was not for the purposes of resale, but for the purpose of leasing
• holding that - 11 - “[t]his reading . . . best serves Congress’ goal of ‘better protecting consumers’”
• holding that the plain language of the Act \does not require [the court] to look at the bundle of rights acquired by the purchaser and the lessee\ to determine if the lessee is a \consumer\
• noting that the Magnuson-Moss Act requires a court to look at the purpose for sale and, because the purpose was for lease and not resale, a lessee could make a Magnuson-Moss Act claim
• discussing why a warranty was connected to a sale between manufacturer and lessor
• summarily noting that all rights in warranty were transferred to lessees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).