consumer protection statutes based on allegations that the braking systems in their subject vehicles, contrary to GM’s representations as to -their safety, were in fact unsafe and hence defective. The plaintiffs in Briehl, who admittedly had not sustained any actual personal injury or property damage due to having purchased vehicles with the allegedly defectively designed braking system, nevertheless claimed damages for lost resale value and overpayment for the vehicles at the time of purchase. Id. at 626. The court, though, held that because the plaintiffs had “failed to allege that any defect had actually manifested itself in their vehicles, [their] allegations of damages failed to meet the pleading requirements for defective products.” Id. The mere .Supp. 595, 603 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (<HOLDING>); Pfizer v. Farsian, 682 So.2d 405, 407
recognizing the cause of action holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages recognizing cause of action holding no cause of action for defect which never manifests itself holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action