Opinion ID: 1301748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Certified Question Four

Text: ¶ 53 The fourth certified question reads as follows: Is a damage award under subsection (7) subject to a reduction for reasonable use of the vehicle? Tammi, 536 F.3d at 714. ¶ 54 As noted, Wis. Stat. § 218.0171(7) cannot be viewed as wholly separate from the rest of the statute. It is very clear from the statute that a purchaser-consumer who demands a refund of the full purchase price is subject to a reasonable allowance for use. Wis. Stat. § 218.0171(2)(b)2.b. It is equally clear that a lessee-consumer who demands a refund of the amount the consumer paid under the written lease is also subject to a reasonable allowance for use. Wis. Stat. § 218.0171(2)(b)3.a. ¶ 55 Under subsection (7), a lessee-consumer is entitled to a refund of his entire lease obligation. In a normal situation, we see no reason in equity or in the statute to disregard a reasonable allowance for use to reduce the amounts used in determining pecuniary loss. We note that reasonable allowance for use is not a precise term. The ceilings provided in the statute are not inflexible. See Wis. Stat. § 218.0171(2)(b)2.b. and (2)(b)3.c. ¶ 56 The statute provides ample penalties for violationnamely, a doubling of the consumer's pecuniary loss, together with costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees, and any equitable relief the court determines appropriate. Wis. Stat. § 218.0171(7). Reasonable attorney fees may exceed pecuniary loss. Disregard of a reasonable allowance for use is not a penalty contemplated by the statute and is not appropriate in the normal situation. ¶ 57 Here the consumer is an attorney who represented himself and did not ask for attorney fees. We were not asked to address this subject.