Plaintiff V. Case Brief

Procedural History: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for fraud and breaches of warranty. Summary judgement granted in favor of defendant by the District Court. Plaintiff appealed claiming genuine issues of material facts exist.

The Facts: Plaintiff bought a used car from Defendant, a used car dealer. Defendant offered no warranty, but told Plaintiff that the car had been inspected and was accident free. Plaintiff purchased a service plan through Defendant to be administered by a third party. Said plan did not cover any previous damage. Defendant neglected to charge the plaintiff for the service plan. Approximately one month later, Plaintiff wrecked the car. Plaintiff had the car towed to a repair shop which claimed to have found damage from a previous accident. The car was repaired, subsequently and continually driven by Plaintiff. Repairs were paid through an insurance claim, minus the deductible. Plaintiff claimed that it has previous damage made the car dangerous to drive, but could not prove the dealership knew of the prior damage. The District Court granted summary judgement on all accounts to Defendant. Plaintiff appeals on the basis that an error in judgement
Defendant sold the car “as is” and did not offer a warranty, only the option to purchase a service plan agreement through a third party, which did not cover any prior damage. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not invoke the service plan, but submitted a claim through his automotive insurance carrier. Additionally Plaintiff cancelled the service plan agreement and received a pro-rated refund. Sufficient evidence was not produced to show genuine issue of material fact existed or that the defendant breached the service