CLAUDE NOLAN CADILLAC, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
IRVIN L. GRIFFIN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Claude Nolan Cadillac appealed a jury verdict awarding damages for revocation of acceptance, breach of warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the first three counts but affirmed the deceptive trade practices judgment based on evidence of substandard paint repairs.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the revocation of acceptance, breach of warranty, and Magnuson-Moss Act counts, as these claims should be pursued against the manufacturer rather than the dealer. However, the court affirmed the jury's verdict on the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, as there was evidence of substandard paint repairs in violation of industry standards.
[1] A dealer may not be held liable for revocation of acceptance, breach of warranty, or violation of the Magnuson-Moss Federal Warranty Improvement Act when the factual scen…
[2] A motor vehicle repair shop engages in an unfair or deceptive act or practice when it materially departs from or disregards accepted trade standards for goods and workman…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The material facts of this case related to the revocation of acceptance, breach of warranty, and violation of the Magnu-son-Moss Act counts are indistinguishable from the factual scenario in Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith”
Establishes that the court applied precedent from a similar case to reverse the judgment on revocation, breach of warranty, and Magnuson-Moss claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaude Nolan Cadillac sold a vehicle to Irvin Griffin. The vehicle had paint repairs that were not performed in accordance with industry standards. Ex…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Revocation Of Acceptance cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
Claude Nolan Cadillac, Inc., appeals from a final judgment assessing damages against appellant as a result of jury verdicts as to counts concerning revocation of acceptance, breach of warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Federal Warranty Improvement Act, and violation of the State of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Appellant raises several issues on appeal, only two of which need to be addressed herein: (1) Whether the trial court erred in not granting Claude Nolan Cadillac’s motion for summary judgment, directed verdict, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the revocation of acceptance, breach of warranty, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Federal Warranty Improvement Act; and (2) whether there was competent substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict finding that Claude Nolan Cadillac violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act.
The material facts of this case related to the revocation of acceptance, breach of warranty, and violation of the Magnu-son-Moss Act counts are indistinguishable from the factual scenario in Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith, 610 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Based upon the rationale in Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc., we reverse the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to those counts. The appellee may properly pursue those counts as to the manufacturer rather than the dealer. Unlike Frank Griffin Volkswagen, however, there are allegations and some evidence to support a claim for a violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which is independent of any alleged breach of warranty. There was evidence presented by at least two experts that the paint repairs performed by appellant were not done in accordance with industry standards.
Rule 2-19.004(7), Florida Administrative Code, states that it shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a motor vehicle repair shop to “make any departure from or disregard accepted trade standards for goods and workmanlike repair in any material respect.”
We, therefore, affirm that portion of the judgment which awards damages for commission of a deceptive trade practice.
SHIVERS, J., and CAWTHON, VICTOR M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffis v. Leisure Tyme RV, Inc., 884 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…WOLF, C.J., Concurring with opinion. I write to note that this case may be distinguished from Claude Nolan Cadillac, Inc. v. Griffin, 610 So. 2d 725 (Fla.App. 1st DCA 1993), and Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith, 610 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), based on the existence of the “pre-delivery inspection form” in this case. I would also note that in both Claude Nolan and Frank Griffin there…
-
Carver Boat Corp. v. Armstrong, 892 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. We affirm on the main appeal, and on both cross-appeals. See Manheim v. Ford Motor Co., 201 So. 2d 440, 441-42 (Fla.1967); Claude Nolan Cadillac, Inc. v. Griffin, 610 So. 2d 725, 725-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith, 610 So. 2d 597, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imps., Inc., 262 N.W. 2d 349, 357 (Minn.1977); Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Novak, 418 So. 2d 801, 804 (Miss.1982);…
Authorities Cited
- Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith, 610 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)