Hinkle v. Rockville Motor Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1971 · Torts

278 A.2d 42 (1971)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsFraud and deceitDamagesMisrepresentationfrauddeceitbenefit of the bargainout of pocket

Facts

Hinkle bought a 1969 Ford Galaxie from Rockville in January 1970 after Rockville represented it as a new car. He later alleged that Rockville knew the car had previously been involved in an accident in Tennessee and concealed that fact, and that the front and rear portions had been welded together after the accident. At trial, Hinkle offered expert testimony that the car could be returned to new-car condition for $800. The trial court nevertheless directed a verdict for Rockville because Hinkle did not offer evidence of the car's actual market value at the time of sale.

Issue

In a fraud and deceit action based on the sale of a car falsely represented as new, must the plaintiff prove actual market value at the time of sale as the exclusive measure of damages, or may the plaintiff prove damages through evidence of the cost required to bring the car into the condition represented?

Rule

Maryland does not rigidly limit fraud and deceit damages to the out-of-pocket measure. The state follows a flexible approach under which a plaintiff may recover direct damages shown by the proof, including benefit-of-the-bargain type damages when proved with sufficient certainty, and cost-to-conform evidence is a permissible measure of such damages.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nora Patel bought a boat from Lakeview Marine Sales after the dealer represented that it had never been damaged. Months later, Nora discovered the hull had been previously cracked and patched, and her marine mechanic testified that $6,500 would restore the boat to the undamaged condition represented at sale.

If Nora sues for deceit and offers no evidence of the boat’s market value at the time of sale, is her proof of damages sufficient to reach the jury?

Explanation. The majority adopted a flexible approach to fraud damages and rejected the idea that actual market value at the time of sale is the exclusive permissible proof. Evidence of the cost to put the property into the represented condition can establish measurable damages and supply a sufficient basis for the jury.