The opinion earlier states that the Municipal Court (the trier of fact in this case) had concluded that Mr. Donavan was unaware of the mistake before being informed of the correct price by the salesperson.  The opinion also mentions earlier that Mr. Donovan had visited a Jaguar dealer on April 26, 1997 prior to visiting Lexus of Westminster.  At the Jaguar dealer he had seen the same model and year Jaguar for $8,000 - $10,000 more than advertised by Lexus of Westminster.   Is it not a little hard to believe that April 26, 1997 was the first date on which Mr. Donovan had priced the model and year Jaguar in question and that he had no knowledge or reason to know of the going price from ads or Kelly Blue Book valuations previously viewed or dealers previously visited?  On the other hand, the opinion tells us that the Jaguar in question had high mileage, an apparent rust problem, worn tires, and was not as clean as other Jaguars. 

     In any event, a trial court's finding of fact will not be reversed on appeal unless the appellate court coincludes that the finding of fact was clearly erroneous.