ROBERT A. ROZEN, APPELLANT,

v.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLEE

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by plaintiff below from a summary judgment entered for defendant, Chrysler Corporation, by the Civil Court of Record for Dade County.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for alleged breach of warranty in connection with the purchase of a new Plymouth automobile from one of the defendant’s local dealers. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he purchased a new ■ Plymouth automobile from the defendant through Dwight W. Broeman’s Plymouth Center, Inc., of Miami, Florida; that the dealer and the defendant warranted and represented the said automobile to be well constructed, without defective parts, and to be suitable as a passenger automobile for private use; that the plaintiff relied upon the truth of the said representations and warranty; that the said automobile was not well constructed, contained defective parts and was not suitable for use as a general1 passenger automobile, and continually broke down and failed to operate properly; that it has been necessary for the plaintiff to have the said automobile repaired at great cost to the plaintiff and he was finally forced to sell the said automobile at a great loss; all of which was made known to the defendant. Plaintiff’s claim is for damages for the alleged breach of warranty.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and also a motion to strike portions of the said complaint. Before hearing was had on these motions the defendant moved for a summary judgment on *736the grounds that the pleadings, depositions and affidavits on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to a summary final judgment as a matter of law. The defendant supported its motion with an affidavit of the secretary of Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Motors Corporation.1 The plaintiff filed his affidavit in opposition to the motion.2 There was also be*737fore the court the deposition of the plaintiff.

Upon hearing, the trial judge granted a summary final judgment which reads as follows:

“This cause came on to be heard upon the motion of the Defendant, Chrysler Corporation for summary judgment in its favor, based upon the complaint, the deposition of the Plaintiff, Robert A. Rozen, the affidavit of G. T. Higgins in support of the motion and the affidavit of Robert A. Rozen in opposition thereto, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, finds that there is no genuine issue as to the following material facts: the Plaintiff, on February 17, 1960, purchased from Dwight W. Broeman’s Plymouth Center, Inc. of Miami, Florida, a 1960 Plymouth Model Fury 8, Type Sport Coupe and received the standard written warranty issued in conjunction with the sale of the said automobile, the material portions being set out in the affidavit of G. T. Higgins, and thereafter the Defendant Chrysler Corporation fulfilled its obligations by paying all statements submitted to it under the above warranty for the cost of parts and labor to repair or replace any alleged defects in material or workmanship on said automobile, and the Court being of the opinion that the said written warranty being expressly in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied, limits the liability of Chrysler Corporation to the terms of the said warranty and that the said Defendant has fully fulfilled all of its obligations thereunder, it is thereupon,

“CONSIDERED, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion of the Defendant Chrysler Corporation for summary judgment be and the same hereby is granted and that the Plaintiff’s complaint be and the same hereby is dismissed with prejudice at Plaintiff’s costs.

“DONE and ORDERED at Miami, Florida this 4th day of October, 1961.”

The main point argued by the plaintiff in this appeal is whether it was error for the trial court to grant the summary final judgment. Since, after careful review, the record fails to disclose any genuine issue as to any material fact, the answer to this question will be found by determining whether the trial judge was correct in ruling that a written warranty of an automobile manufacturer containing a clause that is expressly in lieu of all other warranties express or implied, limited the liability of the manufacturer to the terms of the warranty and excluded any other warranty express or implied which was in conflict with the written warranty.

Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that summary judgment should be entered where' there is no genuine issue as to any material facts and such facts show that the asserted claim is without merit since nothing could be accomplished by submitting the case to the jury. Fields v. Quillian, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 230; Ryan v. Unity, Inc., Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 117; Clark v. City of Atlantic Beach, Fla.App.1960, 124 So. 2d 305.

*738In the case at bar, the record clearly shows that the defendant complied with the terms of the written warranty. As to any other warranties which the plaintiff asserts, we find that the law of this state is that there can be no express or implied warranty contrary to such a written warranty as is here involved. See Steinhardt v. Consolidated Grocery Co., 80 Fla. 531, 86 So. 431.

Accordingly, the summary final judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.