Supreme Court of California

A typographical error in a newspaper advertisement for the price of a car may constitute a valid contract under Vehicle Code section 11713.1(e), but a unilateral mistake of fact may provide the dealer with a basis for rescinding the contract.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/30/2001
• Published 07/30/2001

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
•  Brian J. Donovan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant., Donald Seth, Sonoma;  Law Offices of S. Chandler Visher, S. Chandler Visher, Marie Noel Appel;  The Harris Law Firm, Aurora Dawn Harris, Orange;  Law Office of William E. Kennedy and William E. Kennedy, for National Association of Consumer Advocates as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• James G. Lewis, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent., Manning, Leaver, Bruder & Berberich and Halbert B. Rasmussen, Los Angeles, for California Motor Car Dealers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent., Baker & Hostetler, Glen A. Smith and Megan E. Gray, for The Times Mirror Company and the California Newspaper Publishers Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.