Quantcast
Home / Case Digests / 03-0640 Steele v. Pacesetter Motor Cars, Inc.

03-0640 Steele v. Pacesetter Motor Cars, Inc.

Accordingly, the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff could not recover the amounts he paid for subsequent repair services.“Under the undisputed facts of this case, Steele and Pacesetter entered into an agreement to rebuild the engine ‘to ensure ... many trouble free miles.’ When the engine failed to perform, Steele could have chosen to ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*