Miller v. William Chevrolet/GEO, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an “arms length transaction” between a customer and a car dealer did not trigger a duty to speak
• holding that transaction between dealer and customer “did not possess sufficient indicia of disparity in experience or knowledge such that the dealer could be said to have gained influence and superiority over the purchaser”
• holding that deceptive practice requirement under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act was met by dealer’s material misrepresentation of car’s history as executive driven when in fact car had been used as rental vehicle
• holding “innocent misrepresentations or material omissions” are- -actionable under consumer fraud law that included “the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact” within definition of unlawful practice
• interpreting identical statutory language and stating, “Nor need the defendant have intended to deceive the [investor].”
• holding that misrepresentation of car as executive driven when car in fact had been rental car was material, as plaintiffs deposition indicated that he did not want to purchase a car previously used for rentals and that he would not have purchased the car in question had he known of its history

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).