Court Opinion

ID: 9816319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 02:53:20.372086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:25.550710
License: Public Domain

*747Hoffman, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 37} I concur in the majority’s analysis and disposition of appellant’s second assignment of error.
{¶ 38} I further concur in the majority’s analysis and disposition of appellant’s first assignment of error except for the damage allowance of $200 for appellant’s trade-in. The contract listed the trade-in value as $10.1 The trade-in value is flexible and a factor in establishing the ultimate selling price of the vehicle being purchased. Accordingly, I would award appellant only an additional $1,499.20 in damages.
As to appellant’s third assignment of error, because our remand is limited to consideration of appellant’s claim for attorney fees under appellant’s second assignment of error, I concur in the decision to overrule it, but would do so because the issue is moot.2

. It was represented at argument that appellant still has possession of the vehicle she purchased from appellee, but appellant’s trade-in has been sold by appellee.

. Appellant concedes that the issue is moot if she prevails on all the relief she requested.