Zine v. Chrysler 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 plaintiff did not state an MCPA claim where the omission did not affect the plaintiff’s decision to purchase the product
• stating that “it is appropriate to consider federal cases construing the similar federal court rule” [emphasis added]
• noting that plaintiff described the truck as a business asset, claimed a business deduction for depreciation of the vehicle, and admitted that “over eighty percent of the miles he put on the truck were attributable to business driving”
• explaining the Michigan statute focuses on the use to which the goods would be put, not on the characterization of the plaintiff as a consumer
• defining “material” as “[o]f such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person’s decision-making”
• allowing corporations to bring claims only if they made purchase for their own use

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).