Contingent Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2014
Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]
Contingent Liabilities	16.commitments and Contingencies (A) Litigation On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling in favor of CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the plaintiffs’ overtime claims are no longer a part of the lawsuit. The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues. Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs’ remaining claims into arbitration on an individual basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s ruling to the California Court of Appeal. On March 26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting CarMax’s motion to compel arbitration. On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court. On February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of Appeal for further consideration. The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. 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. (B) Gain Contingency The Company is a class member in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit (In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litig., Case No. 10-2151 (C.D. Cal.), consolidated as of April 9, 2010) against Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (collectively, “Toyota”) related to the economic loss associated with certain Toyota vehicles equipped with electronic throttle controls systems and the potential unintended acceleration of these vehicles. On April 3, 2014, the claims administrator in this matter provided notice to the Company that the Company may recover approximately $20 million (net of attorney’s fees and expenses) as its share of the settlement proceeds in the third calendar quarter of 2014. The estimated recovery: (1) may be reduced to the extent that the total claims made exceed the settlement pool; (2) is subject to final approval of supporting documentation; and (3) remains subject to the entry of a final approval order from the district court judge. We will recognize these proceeds when funds are received from the claims administrator. (C) 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 at least a 30-day 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 $5.7 million as of February 28, 2014, and $4.6 million as of February 29, 2013, and is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

16.commitments and Contingencies

(A) Litigation

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling in favor of CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the plaintiffs’ overtime claims are no longer a part of the lawsuit.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues. Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs’ remaining claims into arbitration on an individual basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s ruling to the California Court of Appeal. On March 26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting CarMax’s motion to compel arbitration. On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court. On February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of Appeal for further consideration. The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys’ fees. 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.

(B) Gain Contingency

The Company is a class member in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit (In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litig., Case No. 10-2151 (C.D. Cal.), consolidated as of April 9, 2010) against Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (collectively, “Toyota”) related to the economic loss associated with certain Toyota vehicles equipped with electronic throttle controls systems and the potential unintended acceleration of these vehicles. On April 3, 2014, the claims administrator in this matter provided notice to the Company that the Company may recover approximately $20 million (net of attorney’s fees and expenses) as its share of the settlement proceeds in the third calendar quarter of 2014. The estimated recovery: (1) may be reduced to the extent that the total claims made exceed the settlement pool; (2) is subject to final approval of supporting documentation; and (3) remains subject to the entry of a final approval order from the district court judge. We will recognize these proceeds when funds are received from the claims administrator.

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 at least a 30-day 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 $5.7 million as of February 28, 2014, and $4.6 million as of February 29, 2013, and is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.