## Facts

- Donald Hinkle bought a 1969 Ford Galaxie from Rockville Motor Co., Inc., after the dealer represented it was “new.”
- The odometer showed about 2,000 miles; after noticing this on the way home, Hinkle returned to the dealer.
- The dealer refunded $109.86, and Hinkle signed a release of further claims except for breach of warranty.
- Months later, Hinkle learned the car had previously been in a serious accident (including major body damage) and had been repaired before the sale.
- Hinkle sued for fraud and deceit based on the “new” representation.
- Hinkle introduced expert testimony that repairing the car to the condition represented (new or equivalent) would cost about $800.

## Issues

1. In a deceit action based on a vehicle falsely represented as “new,” must the plaintiff prove the automobile’s market value at the time of sale (as represented and as delivered) to establish damages?
2. May the plaintiff instead establish damages through evidence of the cost to repair the vehicle to conform to the representation?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the directed verdict for the dealer and remanded.
- The court held the plaintiff was not required to prove the vehicle’s actual market value at the time of purchase to present a damages case in deceit.
- The expert’s cost-to-repair evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find damages and therefore to defeat a directed verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland does not apply a single rigid measure of damages in fraud and deceit; permissible measures depend on the proof and the circumstances.
- A plaintiff may recover either out-of-pocket loss or benefit-of-the-bargain damages when supported by sufficiently definite evidence.
- Evidence of the reasonable cost to repair or bring property into the condition represented can serve as a proxy for the value difference and support benefit-of-the-bargain damages.
- For sufficiency purposes, a plaintiff in deceit must present evidence of deceit, reliance, and resulting damages; direct market-value testimony at the time of sale is not invariably required.

## Conclusion

The court held that a fraud plaintiff alleging a car was falsely sold as “new” could prove damages through competent cost-to-conform repair evidence, and that the absence of market-value evidence at the time of sale did not justify taking the case from the jury.


Hinkle v. Rockville Motor Co., Inc., 262 Md. 502, 278 A.2d 42 (1971)