Quote:
Originally Posted by pillpusher84
If that is true ... then that's great for a lessee, and then the point is moot. I don't know what I'm talking about as I clearly indicated ... however was educated speculation.
|
Discussion on diminished value in a lease seems to be centered around a "what if" scenario involving a lessee who wants to get out of his lease early by trading the car in on a different model. It seems to me the lessee would buy the car out at its current value (based on the lease documents) and then trade it to the dealer, who presumably would give you less because the car had been in an accident. Of course the major loss to the lessee would be the difference between the buyout value and the actual market value (even before considering any accidents) which at the beginning of the lease can be significant.
I think the diminished value argument on a lease is a pretty difficult one to make as the lessee would be asking the court to award him a $ amount based on a theoretical loss
if he should decide to trade his car in before lease end. That $ amount changes as the age of the car changes and there may be no loss if he elects to drive the car to the end of the lease and return it. I question whether a judge would award an amount in the case where the loss is not certain to accrue to the lessee who see himself as an "owner" when he really isn't. If he/she did make an award, it might be to compensate in a situation where there was no actual loss because the car was never traded, or wan't traded at the date the action was filed.
I understand that the OP is pissed at the situation, but his real loss is that he will be making lease payments on a BMW while driving a loaner. There is insurance for that kind of stuff that makes it less costly than trying to sue for that paltry amount (in my opinion).