D, because of typographical and proofreading errors made by a local newspaper, D listed a price for a used automobile that was significantly less than the intended sales price. P attempted to purchase it by tendering the advertised price. The salesperson immediately stated, 'That's a mistake.' The mistake resulted from typographical and proofreading errors made by the newspaper. No employee of D reviewed a proof sheet of the revised Daily Pilot advertisement before it was published, and D was unaware of the mistake until P attempted to purchase the automobile. D refused to honor the price, and P brought this action for breach of contract. The court entered judgment for D on the ground that the mistake in the advertisement precluded the existence of a contract. The appellate court reversed, relying in part upon Vehicle Code section 11713.1, subdivision (e), which makes it unlawful for an automobile dealer not to sell a motor vehicle at the advertised price while the vehicle remains unsold and before the advertisement expires. D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.