THE ETHICAL DIMENSION If a Pride sales representative led the Inkels to believe that the dealership did not care about the excessive miles on the trade-in vehicle, should Pride be willing to incur the loss? Why or why not?

WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that the provision making the buyers responsible for any problems with the trade-in vehicle was clearly visible on the face of the contract that the Inkels signed (rather than being in small print on the back). How might his have changed the outcome of this case?

Normand and Brandy Inkel, who live in Vermont, called Pride Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc., in Boston about buying a new Chevy Tahoe. They said that they would trade in a high-mileage vehicle they had leased. The sales representative told them that the high-mileage penalty would probably not apply as the lease was from a bank, not a dealership. When the Inkels took delivery of the new Tahoe and left their old vehicle at Pride, the price on the contract was $41,200. In small print on the back of the agreement was a provision that the buyer was responsible for any problems with the trade-in vehicle. A month after the sale, Pride told the Inkels they owed another $16,435 because of a misunderstanding with the leasing company about the high-mileage charge. The Inkels refused to pay. Pride demanded that they return the Tahoe and wanted to cancel the deal; the Inkels refused. The Inkels then sued Pride for breach of contract and other claims. A Vermont trial court held that a mutual mistake had been made in the contract and that the Inkels should have agreed to undo the deal. The court granted summary judgment for Pride and ordered the Inkels to pay damages. They appealed.