awarding damages to consumers in pari delicto with defendants “would amount to an 32 unjustifiable windfall”
How later courts described this case
- awarding damages to consumers in pari delicto with defendants “would amount to an 32 unjustifiable windfall”
- when a consumer is in no way deceived and an active participant in the illegal act, an award of damages for the illegal act would amount to an unjustifiable windfall
- court found parties in pari delicto and award of damages an unjustifiable windfall
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Soto, 1984 Tex. App. LEXIS 5447 (1984)
Smail and Rivers are factually distinguishable and are inapplicable to the issue before us.
The opinion
JOHNSON, Justice,
concurring.
This writing concurs in the result obtained in the opinion of the court. In so doing, this writer would emphasize that the issue of substantial compliance has been expressly reserved for future consideration in the opinion.
The opinion of the court of civil appeals has three basic holdings with regard to the federal law: (1) General Electric Credit Corporation violated the federal law; (2) the “availability” of the defense of substantial compliance is not settled; and (3) General Electric Credit Corporation did not substantially comply with the federal law in any event.
The opinion of this court, however, holds that General Electric Credit Corporation did not violate federal law; therefore, the availability of the defense of substantial compliance is not reached. The opinion should not be construed as commenting on the availability of the defense of substantial compliance.
SPEARS, J., joins in this concurring opinion.