Legal Opinion

Gentry v. Kelley Kar Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 26, 1961No. Civ. No. 24920PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWood, P. J.

Plaintiffs Eugene and Ruth Gentry sought (1) damages for fraud in inducing them to execute a lease of an automobile, (2) damages for violation of section 2982, subdivision (a), of the Civil Code (failure to recite certain items in a conditional sale contract of an automobile, and failure to deliver a copy of the contract at the time of its execution), and (3) damages for a violation of section 2982, subdivision (c), of the Civil Code (limiting the amount of the time price differential under a conditional sale contract of an automobile). They also sought (1) to cancel the lease and a chattel…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kantlehner v. BiscegliaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. Pendell v. WarrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. The Merchant of Tennis v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2026
  2. The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2026
  3. The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API