Eliason v. Harrison (2018)

Citation: Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
Parent Document: Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2018-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10026732/eliason-v-harrison/ ↗

Full Text

1,131 chars

The Supreme Court has addressed a similar question under the Salvage Title Act, which
requires the seller, “at the option of the buyer, to refund to the buyer the purchase price[.]” 23
V.S.A. § 2093(c). Though § 2093 was “silent on the subject,” where the consumer continued to
use the vehicle, “general equitable principles” entitled the seller to a setoff equivalent to the
value of the use of the vehicle. Jensvold v. Town & Country Motors, Inc., 162 Vt. 580, 584
(1994). Our Supreme Court then applied Jensvold to hold that § 2093 required the purchaser to
elect whether to return the car and be reimbursed the purchase price, or receive as damages the
difference between the purchase price and the car’s actual value. Gregory v. Poulin Auto Sales,
Inc., 2010 VT 85, ¶ 15, 188 Vt. 619. Any other result “would effectively allow” the purchaser
“to gain a windfall profit.” Id. The court therefore found equity required interpreting § 2093’s
use of the term “refund” as incorporating the concept of returning the vehicle, i.e., containing
“the normal restitutionary requirement of restoring the parties to their original status.”

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text