061458 Manassas Autocars v. Couch 06/08/2007

(We updated this posting on August 5, 2009.)

The Supreme Court of Virginia said, in deciding a suit concerning the advertisement and sale of a new automobile, that the trial court correctly ruled that a statute governing the permissible means of advertising the sale of new automobiles, Code § 46.2-1581(12)(a), prevails over a conflicting administrative regulation, and also did not err in submitting the purchasers’ claims under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Code § 59.1-196 et seq., and the revocation of acceptance statute, Code § 8.2-608, to the jury. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

Without going into all of the factual details (all of which are detailed in the full opinion referenced above), the bottom line is as follows:

1.  This decision held that a dealer could not rely on the Motor Vehicle Dealer Board regulation which indicated that listing a stock number or VIN, alone, satisfied the requirement to disclose limited availability. However, a 2008 amendment to the statute (46.2-1581, subsection 12a) had the effect of reversing this part of the decision and codified the Board regulation.
2. The doctrine of a “driveability” standard (set forth in the 1984 Gasque v. Mooers Motor Car Co.) for revocation of acceptance under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) of a motor vehicle, is not to be universally applied, but only in cases “where the buyers failed to provide any need for the car beyond ordinary transportation.” In this case, the Court held that revocation of acceptance (when timely made), including any damages occasioned, is available to a consumer even when the alleged “nonconformance” was that the vehicle was repaired by repainting. Here the customer contracted to buy a “new” vehicle, and not one that was repaired without their agreement.

(Summary by Bill Lehner, chair, Motor Vehicle Dealer Services Team, June 11, 2007, with 2009 revision)

Tags: advertising, auto law, dealer operations

This entry was posted on Monday, June 11th, 2007 at 9:00 am and is filed under automotive law, consumer credit, regulatory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.