The fine print bites Toyota in the bumper

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v Glick, 2012 NY Slip Op 50121 [Suff Cty 2012] [available here]

Usually the fine print in a consumer credit document works against the average, everyday schmo who signs the contract. You are bound by the words of the contracts you sign, and even if you never actually read all the tiny words printed in big block swaths of dense text on the back of a contract, you will still be treated by a court as if you read and understood every word.

Maybe it was karma at work, but the fine print actually saved the consumer in Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v Glick. The defendant in Glick--Glick himself, presumably--leased a Toyota and then stopped making his payments. Toyota sued Glick for breach of contract, based on his failure to pay as required by the lease, and asked the Court for summary judgment*.

Glick asked the Court to deny the motion for summary judgment, not because he had proof that he actually made his payments, but because the size of the print on the lease was too small. Provisions of the CPLR and Personal Property Law separately require the print in "retail lease agreements" to be "at least eight point type in ink that contrasts with the paper used." If a smaller font size is used, any part of the contract that is printed in smaller than 8-point font is inadmissible against the consumer at trial.

Glick argued that his lease with Toyota could not be admitted as evidence against him on the motion, because the type-face used was smaller than an 8-point font. The court agreed and denied Toyota's motion, noting that the "record presented is devoid of evidence establishing the actual type set of the original contract, other than the plaintiff's affixation to its motion papers of Exhibit C (copy of the subject auto lease), which appears to the naked eye to be violative of" the CPLR and Personal Property Law provision governing font size . . . Whether a contract's print size violates Sec. 4544 [of the CPLR] is inherently a triable issue of fact that precludes the grant of summary judgment."

So, Toyota is left to prove a breach of contract at trial, when the contract itself is (probably) inadmissible because it was printed in little, tiny letters. Well played, Toyota attorney responsible for drafting boilerplate leases. Well played.

* Summary Judgment means the Court decides that there is no issue of fact to actually put in front of a jury. The proof is so one-sided that, as a matter of law, one side should win outright, and the Court can make that determination at an early stage and avoid an unnecessary trial.