The case involves a dispute between the Russells and Ford Motor Credit Company and Monticello Ford and Mercury, Inc. The Russells claimed that an automobile advertisement was a binding offer to the public, but the court found that it was not. The automobile was repossessed after Ms. Russell defaulted on payments and subsequently sold. Ford Credit sought a deficiency judgment against the Russells, who counterclaimed. The court is reviewing the summary judgment to determine if there are genuine issues of material fact and if the district court applied the law correctly.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Russell (1994)
Minnesota Court of Appeals
519 N.W.2d 460

Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]

---

Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.

Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]

Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.

Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]

свернуть