APPELLATE LAW SECTION
A customer goes into a car dealership to buy a used car . He finds a car he likes and negotiates the price . He signs a bunch of paperwork ( which he hardly reads ) and is given the keys to his “ new ” used car . However , within days of pulling out of the dealership ’ s driveway , the engine begins spewing black smoke . He soon discovers that he bought a total lemon that is almost worthless , and he ’ s on the hook for years of financing charges . He soon learns that because it is a used vehicle there are no manufacturer warranties and no “ lemon law ” protections , and the dealership will not help him because he signed an “ as is ” contract . It would appear the customer is out of luck . Perhaps . But not necessarily .
Most used car sales include broad language disclaiming all warranties from the dealership and making it clear that the vehicle is sold “ as is .” However , even in the presence of an “ as is ” contract , a number of Florida and federal laws still apply to the sale of any motor vehicle , including used vehicles . The ripped-off consumer may have a remedy yet ...
Of course , the first place to start is with the contract itself . Florida Statute § 501.976 ( 6 ) provides that it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice , actionable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act , for a dealer to sell a vehicle “ without fully and conspicuously disclosing in writing at or before the consummation of sale any warranty or guarantee terms , obligations , or conditions that the dealer or manufacturer has given to the buyer .” Further , “[ i ] f the dealer intends to disclaim or limit any expressed or implied warranty , the disclaimer must be in writing in a conspicuous manner and in lay terms in accordance with chapter 672 and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty--Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act .” In some circumstances , the Buyers Order , or sale contract , may not contain a disclaimer that complies with Florida law . If so , then the dealer has violated Chapter 501 , Florida Statutes , and may be responsible to the customer for damages caused by that violation .
Assuming the warranty disclaimer is valid , the inquiry does not end there . The conduct of the dealership leading up to the sale of the vehicle could become grounds for a cause of action pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act . For example , it is a violation for a dealership to “[ r ] epresent the previous usage or status of a vehicle to be something that it was not , or make usage or status representations unless the dealer has correct information regarding the history of the vehicle to support the representations .” Fla . Stat . § 501.976 ( 3 ). The foregoing statute imposes several obligations on a dealership , including conduct and disclosures leading up to the consummation of the sale . See e . g ., Cabrera V . Haims Motors , Inc ., 288 F . Supp . 3d 1315 ( S . D . Fla . 2017 ).
Serious misrepresentations that go beyond mere “ puffery ” can form both a statutory claim , as well as a fraud claim that is not necessarily barred by an “ as is ” disclaimer . Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet , Inc . v . Savage , 570 So . 2d 306 ( Fla . 4th DCA 1990 ). A fraudulent inducement claim may exist , even where the contract contains a merger clause that purports to negate any oral statements made by the dealership . Meija v . Jurich , 781 So . 2d 1175 ( Fla . 3d DCA 2001 ).
In some situations , a buyer discovers that the vehicle he or she purchased is a rebuilt vehicle , was previously totaled , or that it sustained flood damage . Florida Statute § 319.14 requires that these conditions ( among others ) must be conspicuously placed on the certificate of title , as well as in any advertisements for the vehicle , and that it is a deceptive practice for a dealer to offer a vehicle for sale without such disclosures . See e . g ., Ham v . Heintzelman ’ s Ford , Inc ., 256 So . 2d 264 ( Fla . 4th DCA 1971 ). These statutory violations are also not waivable by an “ as is ” sale if the dealership actively concealed this information from the buyer . Once again , the circumstances surrounding the sale do matter , and could provide a remedy to the apparently out-of-luck purchaser .
Another possible avenue for redress is the Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act , Florida Statute § 520.01 et seq ., as well as its Federal counterpart , the Truth in Lending Act , 15 U . S . C . 1601 et seq (“ TILA ”). Both statutes impose certain obligations on the dealership when they are financing the sale of a vehicle .
See USED CARS , Page 20 THE DOCKET - NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2021 | 17