Nassar v. Wiz Leasing Inc.
Allegations that a motor vehicle was inoperable within one hour of purchase, that the defendant twice made repairs and refused to refund the purchase price, and that the defendant neglected to provide a copy of the Buyer's Guide and to inform purchasers of rights, can be sufficient to allege violation of the implied warranty of merchantability. The plaintiffs purchased a 2003 Mitsubishi Diamente after the defendant's representative, Frank, allegedly said the motor vehicle was a "good car" with "low mileage" in "excellent condition." Allegedly, the plaintiffs were not provided a copy of the Buyer's Guide, and the car dealer did not display a Buyer's Guide, as required by the Federal Trade Commission's Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule, 16 Code of Federal Regulations §455. The plaintiff's complaint alleged that within one hour of purchase, the "service engine" light turned on and the motor-vehicle was inoperable. The following month, the motor vehicle allegedly bucked when the brakes were used, and there was a grinding noise, when turning. The plaintiffs returned the motor vehicle for repairs, and the defendant refused to return the purchase price. The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' complaint. Allegations that the motor-vehicle experienced mechanical problems, the plaintiffs were not provided with the Buyer's Guide or informed about their rights, and the plaintiffs were not informed the motor-vehicle was sold "as is," were sufficient to state a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Act. The act provides that "a consumer who is damaged by the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any obligation under this title . . . or under a written warranty, implied warranty, or service contract may bring a suit for damages." The court denied the motion to strike that count. The plaintiffs failed to allege fraudulent misrepresentation, because they did not allege that the statement of the defendant's representative, Frank, was untrue and known to be untrue. The plaintiffs' complaint adequately alleged breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §42a-2-314 and the Magnuson Warranty Act. The court denied the defendants' motion to strike warranty counts.