in the lease which indicates that the charge for termination will be $700. As a result, the lessee decides to remain in the lease. Unbeknownst to the lessee, the lessor intends on offering a reduction of $250. The lessee has based a decision on incomplete information and in fact has made the wrong decision. We note that in such a situation, the lessee has been harmed by the lessor’s policy, even though the penalty, if imposed, would have been less that than expected. The harm lies in the lessee being induced to make an irrational decision because he does not possess a full understanding of the true costs of his actions. Chrysler next argues that Villasenor has made this argument, that the actual formula for determining the penalty differs from what is stated in th 72 (7th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>)- “This rule is necessary to give plaintiffs
holding that a plaintiff may present unsubstantiated factual allegations on appeal provided they are consistent with the complaint to show that the complaint should not have been dismissed holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint recognizing that one of those conditions for a district judge to grant leave to amend the complaint may properly be that claims contained in the original complaint but not included in the amended complaint be considered dismissed with prejudice  holding that the plaintiffs complaint was valid because despite general allegations it provided notice holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her