Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
May 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingent Liabilities	Contingent Liabilities Litigation. CarMax entities are defendants in four proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and non-exempt employees in California. The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages, reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General Act claims. On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys’ fees. On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC et. al., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys’ fees. On November 21, 2018, Derek Mcelhannon et al v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. On February 1, 2019, the Mcelhannon lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The Mcelhannon lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory and/or civil penalties, interest, cost and attorneys’ fees. Based upon our evaluation of information currently available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing proceedings will not have a material adverse effect, either individually or in the aggregate, on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action asserting wage and hour claims, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. On April 11, 2019, the court dismissed the Rowland lawsuit, including the class claims, and compelled arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims on an individualized basis. On April 25, 2017 and October 11, 2018, the company met with representatives from multiple California municipality district attorney offices as part of an informal inquiry by those offices into the handling, storage and disposal of certain types of hazardous waste at our store locations in those municipalities. We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters. We are involved in various other legal proceedings in the normal course of business. Based upon our evaluation of information currently available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of any such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect, either individually or in the aggregate, on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Other Matters. In accordance with the terms of real estate lease agreements, we generally agree to indemnify the lessor from certain liabilities arising as a result of the use of the leased premises, including environmental liabilities and repairs to leased property upon termination of the lease. Additionally, in accordance with the terms of agreements entered into for the sale of properties, we generally agree to indemnify the buyer from certain liabilities and costs arising subsequent to the date of the sale, including environmental liabilities and liabilities resulting from the breach of representations or warranties made in accordance with the agreements. We do not have any known material environmental commitments, contingencies or other indemnification issues arising from these arrangements. As part of our customer service strategy, we guarantee the used vehicles we retail with a 90-day/4,000 mile limited warranty. A vehicle in need of repair within this period will be repaired free of charge. As a result, each vehicle sold has an implied liability associated with it. Accordingly, based on historical trends, we record a provision for estimated future repairs during the guarantee period for each vehicle sold. The liability for this guarantee was $8.8 million as of May 31, 2019, and $7.4 million as of February 28, 2019, and is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

Contingent Liabilities

Litigation. CarMax entities are defendants in four proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and non-exempt employees in California. The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages, reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General Act claims. On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys’ fees. On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC et. al., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys’ fees. On November 21, 2018, Derek Mcelhannon et al v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. On February 1, 2019, the Mcelhannon lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The Mcelhannon lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory and/or civil penalties, interest, cost and attorneys’ fees. Based upon our evaluation of information currently available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing proceedings will not have a material adverse effect, either individually or in the aggregate, on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action asserting wage and hour claims, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. On April 11, 2019, the court dismissed the Rowland lawsuit, including the class claims, and compelled arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims on an individualized basis.

On April 25, 2017 and October 11, 2018, the company met with representatives from multiple California municipality district attorney offices as part of an informal inquiry by those offices into the handling, storage and disposal of certain types of hazardous waste at our store locations in those municipalities. We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters.

We are involved in various other legal proceedings in the normal course of business. Based upon our evaluation of information currently available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of any such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect, either individually or in the aggregate, on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Matters. In accordance with the terms of real estate lease agreements, we generally agree to indemnify the lessor from certain liabilities arising as a result of the use of the leased premises, including environmental liabilities and repairs to leased property upon termination of the lease. Additionally, in accordance with the terms of agreements entered into for the sale of properties, we generally agree to indemnify the buyer from certain liabilities and costs arising subsequent to the date of the sale, including environmental liabilities and liabilities resulting from the breach of representations or warranties made in accordance with the agreements. We do not have any known material environmental commitments, contingencies or other indemnification issues arising from these arrangements.

As part of our customer service strategy, we guarantee the used vehicles we retail with a 90-day/4,000 mile limited warranty. A vehicle in need of repair within this period will be repaired free of charge. As a result, each vehicle sold has an implied liability associated with it. Accordingly, based on historical trends, we record a provision for estimated future repairs during the guarantee period for each vehicle sold. The liability for this guarantee was $8.8 million as of May 31, 2019, and $7.4 million as of February 28, 2019, and is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.