Carpenter v. Chrysler

Missouri Court of Appeals · Contracts

Contractsexpress warrantyfraudodometer fraudpunitive damageselection of remediesUCC 2-313UCC 2-316(1)

Facts

The Carpenters bought a 1986 Chrysler LeBaron from CPW after the dealer represented it as reliable and sold it as a new car. Before the sale, Chrysler had used the car in its overnight evaluation program while the odometer was disconnected, and CPW had made substantial repairs and failed to disclose them. After purchase, the car had repeated steering, ignition, oil leak, transmission, and dashboard problems, and CPW performed numerous repairs. The Carpenters later learned of the odometer disconnection and sued Chrysler and CPW for odometer fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and related claims.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly granted new trials to Chrysler and CPW after jury verdicts for the Carpenters. More specifically, whether the Carpenters made submissible fraud, odometer, and warranty claims; whether CPW could rely on warranty disclaimers despite selling the car as new; and whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on Chrysler's separate timely new-trial motion.

Rule

A seller's description of goods as "new" in the contract is an express warranty under § 400.2-313(1)(b), and under § 400.2-316(1) an inconsistent disclaimer in the same contract is inoperative to the extent the two cannot reasonably be construed consistently. Fraud requires proof of representation, falsity, materiality, knowledge, intent, ignorance, reliance, right to rely, and proximate injury; reliance may be inferred from circumstances. Separate timely new-trial motions filed by different parties each carry their own period for trial-court consideration, and ruling on one does not automatically deny another.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Kansas City, Maya Lopez bought a sedan from Riverbend Auto Plaza under a retail installment contract that identified the vehicle as "new." The same contract also stated in boilerplate that the dealer made no express warranties other than the manufacturer's warranty. Before sale, the dealer had replaced the car's transmission and repainting on two body panels but said nothing about those repairs.

If Maya sues the dealer for breach of express warranty based on the car's being sold as new, which is the strongest argument for Maya?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a description of goods made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods conform to that description. Where the same contract describes a vehicle as "new" but also contains boilerplate language disclaiming dealer warranties, the provisions cannot reasonably be construed consistently, so the disclaimer is inoperative to that extent. That is the strongest basis for Maya's claim.