When this is the fact pattern in your civil case, you don't come off as an overly sympathetic person, in my view.
Michelle Nichols leases a BMW 640 (MSRP around $70,000+) in 2012. She quickly tires of it.
Later that year, she decides to get a new car, deciding that “the 640 was a little small for me.” So in September, she leases a new BMW 750Li -- an even more expensive vehicle -- even though she's a little "concerned it might not fit into her garage."
It does not, in fact, fit. But she nonetheless drives it for nearly a month, putting 1,700 miles on it, before taking it back to the dealership and trying to exchange it for yet a third (incredibly expensive) vehicle -- this time, a BMW X6. She does, in fact, get the third car, but as a result, she owes a bit more money, since she's now leased three different brand new cars, and as you know, they depreciate a ton the second you drive 'em off the lot.
She thereafter tries to get out of the deal that she struck, arguing on appeal only that she was able to rescind the contract because the dealership allegedly put her down payment on the wrong line of the contract (since it was a "deferred" down payment since at least one of the checks was postdated by a couple of weeks).
That argument persuaded neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeal.
The case is nonetheless a great example of First World Problems in the City of Angels.
