Smith v. Rosenthal Toyota, Inc.

573 A.2d 418 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Smith (P) stopped at Rosenthal (D) to look at trucks. P found a truck that he liked and told the salesman that he would not buy anything without his wife’s consent. P was driving a Chevette that was titled jointly in his and his wife’s name. When asked if he had the title to the Chevette P claimed in his deposition that it was at home and that the salesman said to take the truck home for a test drive for the weekend and if your wife likes it, she can come back and sign and finalize the deal. P also stated that the salesman told him he did not make enough money to get the truck on his own. The salesman then drove P home to get the title and told P that the purpose to getting the title was a mere formality. They got the certificate and P was told that the truck would be readied and he would be able to take it home but that he would have to sign some papers. P then claims that he was told again that he could take the truck home for the weekend and if his wife didn’t like to then bring it back but if she does come in and finalize the deal. P them claimed that they went to the finance office and signed some papers he never read in about three seconds and was on his way. The papers that P in fact signed were a retail installment contract to purchase the truck for $13,843 of which $2,800 was to be paid on the Chevette trade in, $1,920 to be paid in cash and the balance to be financed and an agreement that if D was unable to find an institution to finance the truck it had the right to acquire the Chevette at $900. Other papers included the title certificate to the Chevette endorsed in blank, a written warranty that the Chevette had been traded for the truck and that P had free title to the Chevette or that he would deliver free title within five days or would reimburse D for the total amount of the vehicle and a credit application that he was a houseman for Days Inn at $16,000 and his wife’s income was $42,000 per year. P also signed a Notice to Cosigner and was given a copy so that P’s wife could sign as well. When P got home, his wife discovered the truck the next day, and she told him to return it at which point D refused to accept the truck back and was told that basically, P had bought the truck. P’s wife was working for a law firm, and she discussed the matter with one of the attorneys who then called D and wrote a letter and when D read the hand-carried letter from Mrs. Smith, the manager of D simply laughed. P sued D. The court granted D summary judgment in that no promises, representations, or inducements had been made to Mrs. Smith and as such her action for fraud must fail. As for the conversion action, the court ruled that the documents signed by P clearly showed that those agreements shall supersede and prevail over any prior or contemporaneous oral or written statements. The court found this integration clause dispositive. P appealed.