Contingent Liabilities	9 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingent Liabilities	Contingent Liabilities 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 wage and hour claims with respect to a putative class consisting of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. The court dismissed certain of the initial claims so that, by June 16, 2009, the remaining claims regarded the sales consultant putative class and were: (1) failure to provide meal breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (the "Private Attorney General Act"). On March 30, 2016, the remaining claims asserted by Fowler were settled for an immaterial amount. On August 30, 2016, the remaining claims asserted by Areso were settled for an immaterial amount. CarMax entities are defendants in three additional proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants 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, provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General Act claims. On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss 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 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 September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and 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. 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 November 30, 2016, and $6.1 million as of February 29, 2016, and is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

Contingent Liabilities

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 wage and hour claims with respect to a putative class consisting of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. The court dismissed certain of the initial claims so that, by June 16, 2009, the remaining claims regarded the sales consultant putative class and were: (1) failure to provide meal breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (the "Private Attorney General Act"). On March 30, 2016, the remaining claims asserted by Fowler were settled for an immaterial amount. On August 30, 2016, the remaining claims asserted by Areso were settled for an immaterial amount.

CarMax entities are defendants in three additional proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants 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, provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General Act claims. On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss 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 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 September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and 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.

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 November 30, 2016, and $6.1 million as of February 29, 2016, and is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.