Court Opinion

ID: 9612897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:12:08.008176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:23.398191
License: Public Domain

RICHARD H. EDELMAN, Justice,
concurring on rehearing.
I agree that the damage evidence presented in this case is legally insufficient, *682but I disagree with the majority opinion’s discussion regarding the applicable damage calculation. Because the appellants sought only to purchase (not lease) the vehicles, and because a lease is fundamentally different from, and therefore not comparable to, a purchase, there is no way to calculate damages as between a purchase and lease as such. Nor would it be meaningful to calculate the difference between the value received versus the value parted with under a lease and purchase, respectively, because that still does not give a basis to compare one with the other. Instead, evidence of damage would have to allow a comparison of the total cost to purchase the respective vehicles by way of the lease each appellant entered into (exercising the purchase option) versus the purchase transaction they were represented to be entering into. This would involve an adjustment by an appropriate discount factor to compensate for the differing times and amounts at which payments would be made under each alternative. Without such an “apples to apples” comparison, it is not possible to tell whether the appellants were better or worse off with the lease transaction they actually entered into than they would have been with the purchase transaction they were allegedly represented to be entering into, and thus whether they suffered any actual damage. Moreover, because the damage evidence was legally insufficient, it is unnecessary to address any other conclusion of law or finding of fact.