Carrigg v. General R.v. Center, Inc.

Facts

Ps, a retired couple in their mid-to-late 70's, purchased a used 2013 Thor Challenger recreational vehicle from D. Ps traded in their old RV and agreed to pay an additional $62,228.33. They also purchased a three-year service warranty. Throughout the process of purchasing the RV a General RV salesman, Julius 'Juice' Tatum, as well as other agents of General RV-including a sales manager, financing manager, general manager, and service manager-made misrepresentations about the condition and quality of the RV, as well as the applicable warranties. Ds presented that the RV was in excellent condition and 'came with the remainder of a 10-year manufacturer's bumper-to-bumper factory warranty that specifically covered any structural defects.' They alleged that the vehicle was 'like new' at the time of purchase, Ps contend the RV had 'major structural damage' and, as they later claim to have discovered, had previously been totaled and its chassis replaced with a salvage chassis. The advertised 'bumper-to-bumper' manufacturer's warranty had expired two years before. Ps also claim that Ds misrepresented the scope of the three-year warranty they purchased at the dealership, reassuring them that the warranty would cover any needed repairs to fix structural or mechanical problems with the vehicle. Ps claimed that they relied on Ds' express misrepresentations to their detriment. The purchase agreement contained the following integration clause: THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT CONTAINS THE ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN GENERAL RV AND PURCHASER. NO ONE HAS AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION BEYOND THIS AGREEMENT. NO OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OR INDUCEMENTS, VERBAL OR WRITTEN HAVE BEEN MADE, WHICH ARE NOT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT. PURCHASER HAS NOT RELIED ON ANYTHING NOT WRITTEN INTO THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT SUCH THAT NOTHING ELSE IS THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN OR IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST GENERAL RV, EVEN IF ALLEGED TO BE A MISREPRESENTATION. BY SIGNING BELOW, PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT PURCHASER HAS RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT PURCHASER HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THOSE PRINTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE, WHICH INCLUDE AN 'AS IS' CLAUSE, A NON-REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT STATEMENT, AND A CHOICE OF LAW AND FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES INDICATING THAT MICHIGAN LAW APPLIES TO ALL POTENTIAL DISPUTES AND THAT ALL CLAIMS MUST BE FILED IN MICHIGAN. The 'as is' purchase warning and express exclusion of warranties on the reverse side of the agreement states: “EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES, 'AS IS' PURCHASE PURCHASER UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE MAY BE WRITTEN WARRANTIES COVERING THIS RV, BUT THAT THESE WARRANTIES ARE OFFERED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE RV . . . . PURCHASER UNDERSTANDS THAT DEALER OFFERS NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ON THIS RV. THIS RV IS SOLD 'AS IS' BY DEALER, AND DEALER DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This document is not a warranty and nothing that Dealer says or does creates a warranty . . . . This is true even if Purchaser purchases a service contract . . . . Also, since Dealer provides no warranties from Dealer, any written warranty from a manufacturer of the vehicle or its components is Purchaser's sole and exclusive remedy for any problem that Purchaser may have with the vehicle or any appliance or component.” Ps also signed a separate General RV 'as is' and warranty disclaimer form, thereby again acknowledging that the RV was purchased 'as is' and that the two-sided purchase agreement is 'the only document that contains the terms and conditions of [the] agreement with General RV.' The same warranty disclaimer former also includes an additional exclusion of warranties provision which Plaintiffs signed, affirming: 'I understand that GENERAL RV OFFERS NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ON THIS RV AND THAT I AM PURCHASING THE RV 'AS IS' FROM GENERAL RV. GENERAL RV DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.' Ps signed several forms, including the purchase agreement, in the process of purchasing their RV. Everette Carrigg, the primary buyer, also signed an additional acknowledgment averring that he had received the purchase agreement, 'was allowed the necessary and requested amount of time to review its contents' and 'fully understood the terms and conditions.' Ps allege that D rushed them through the sales process, without any meaningful opportunity to review the paperwork or to examine the 'fine print,' which Patsy Carrigg found difficult to read because of her eye problems. Ps immediately discovered that the RV was 'mechanically unsound, unsafe to drive, and did not conform to the representations D had made.' Repairs were needed at the outset, according to Plaintiffs, to address the following problems: broken driver's seat; defective step control modules; seeping jack seals; malfunctioning R/R thermistor, camera, radio, and monitors; and an unsealed or leaking toilet. A litany of more serious structural and mechanical problems included a windshield that popped out of the vehicle, a defective leveling device, a malfunctioning awning system, and unstable interior walls. D then explained that there was no manufacturer's warranty on the vehicle and apparently declined to make the repairs P sued Ds and Ds moved for summary judgment.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.