Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Russell

Monticello Ford advertised a 1988 Ford Escort at a specific price with monthly payments based on 11% financing, but Dawn Russell (defendant) could not actually qualify for that rate and instead financed through Ford Motor Credit (plaintiff) at 13.75%, signing a contract at the higher rate with her father David co-signing. After Russell defaulted and Ford Credit repossessed and resold the car at a loss, it sued for a deficiency judgment; the Russells counterclaimed against Ford Credit and brought a third-party claim against Monticello Ford for breach of contract and misrepresentation, based on the advertised 11% rate. The district court granted summary judgment for Ford Credit on the deficiency claim and for Monticello Ford on the third-party claim, and the Russells appealed.