Weigel v. Ron Tonkin Chevrolet Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that the ascertainable loss requirement should be “viewed broadly” and that losses too small to be cognizable under the common law nevertheless suffice for purposes of the UTPA
• explaining that “[t]he evident purpose [ORS 646.638] is to 492 Stewart v. Albertson’s, Inc. encourage private actions when the financial injury is too small to justify the expense of an ordinary lawsuit”
• leaving open the question whether frustration of a consumer’s reasonable expectations can constitute an ascertainable loss under the UTPA
• question of whether automobile is new or used within the meaning of a particular statute is a question of law for the court
• difference in value between car sold as “new” and one that had previously been sold and returned to the dealer
• ascertainable loss is “any determinable loss,” including loss that cannot be mea- sured exactly; loss may be “so small that the common law likely would reject it as grounds for relief”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).