Normand Inkel traded his "over mileage" leased truck for a new one. Dealer checked with the lien holder Bank and told Inkel the bank didn't care about the excess miles, only the actual amount due on the loan ($14,720). The sale occurred on that basis. Inkel drove the new truck home. Dealer took the old truck, agreeing to pay off the loan.

Later Dealer told Inkel it made a mistake and the bank insisted on an "over mileage fee," so he owed $16,435. Inkel refused to pay, and sued Dealer for consumer fraud. Dealer countersued saying it made a mistake when it contacted the Bank that Inkel knew or should have known the pay out figure was wrong, and anyhow the fine print on its contract said Inkel had to pay even if dealer made a mistake.

The trial court ruled for Dealer without a trial, saying Inkel knew the lease payout amount was too low so there was no consumer fraud, and Dealer's contract put the risk on him.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a jury trial. A Consumer Fraud Act claim only requires proof that the seller committed an unfair and deceptive act in commerce, which was significant enough to affect the deal. There is no need to prove the Dealer intended to deceive, only that the dealer intended to offer the deal, which was unfair and deceptive. The court also noted that "fine print" in contracts are seldom read by buyers and frequently not understood. Accordingly, a jury could find deception based on Dealer's mistaken statement, whether honest or not, of the low pay off amount, when taken together with the fine print making Inkel take the risk of paying more if there was a "mistake".

But the court also ruled the Dealer could try to convince a jury that there was no deception and its contractual provision requiring Inkel to pay in spite of a mistake should be valid.

This is a common consumer transaction where the Dealer has an incentive to make a sale and relies on sales contracts written by lawyers for big corporations to favor them. Wisely, the court left it to a jury to decide whether consumer or Dealer was the victim. It put teeth into the consumer fraud law, though, because in view of the "mistake" and the contract, the dealer's acts may be inherently unfair and deceptive. Normand and Brandy Inkel v. Pride Chevrolet 2008 VT 6.