FAULK
v.
WELLER K-F CARS, INC.
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.
A buyer of a used car sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging the seller misrepresented the vehicle's condition. The trial court directed a verdict against the buyer on the fraud claim, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the written warranty and explicit contract terms negated any claim of fraudulent misrepresentation.
The court affirmed the directed verdict against the buyer's fraud claim, holding that the written guarantee and clearly defined contractual rights negated any fraudulent misrepresentation and contemplated the possibility that repairs might be needed.
“No .Saleman's verbal agreement is binding on the Company; all terms and conditions of this sale are expressed in this agreement; any promises or understandings not herein specified in writing, are hereby expressly waived.”
Establishes the contractual disclaimer of oral agreements and unwritten terms, which is central to negating fraud claims.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFaulk purchased a used car from Weller K-F Cars, Inc. She signed a written contract stating that no salesman's verbal agreements were binding and all …
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 Express Warranty cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
The appellant purchased a used automobile from the appellee. She went into the appellee’s place-of business with some friend and signed a written, contract, reading in part as follows:
“Please enter my order for one used car — as is: * * *
“No .Saleman’s verbal agreement is binding on the Company; all terms and conditions of this sale are expressed in this agreement; any promises or understandings not herein specified in writing, are hereby expressly waived. * * *»
On the same day appellant was given an Approved Used Car Warranty which warranted the condition of'the car for thirty days and provided that any defects in the car would be remedied at a cost of only 50% of both parts and labor, and further provided in Paragraph 5 as follows:
“No other warranties, representations, or agreements, expressed or implied, have been made to the buyer.”
About a month after the purchase of the used car, it was returned to the appellee for repairs., which repairs were made at a cost of $456.99. .Appellant refused to pay the bill and brought this suit, claiming that the appellee had fraudulently misrepresented the used car to her. The appellee filed a counterclaim for one-half the amount of the repair bill. The trial Judge directed a verdict against the appellant as to her complaint for fraud and the jury returned a verdict against her on the counterclaim for ori,e-half of the repair bill.’ Judgment was entered upon this verdict and the appellant prosecutes this appeal.'
The allegations and the proof with - reference to fraudulent misrepresentations were wholly insufficient. Nothing new. would be presented to -the jurisprudence of-the State by a discussion of the requirements to allege and prove fraudulent misrepresentations. The fact that there was a written guarantee and the rights of the parties were definitely defined negatives the idea of fraudulent misrepresentations and pre-supposes that something might be »vrong with the condition of the used automobile which would require repairs, which it might be necessary to remedy, with • a • portion of the cost thereof to be borne by each of the parties.
It has not been made to appear that any reversible error was committed by the trial Court.
Affirmed'.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tinker v. De Maria Porsche Audi, Inc., 459 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…at judgment in its favor notwithstanding the jury verdict was correct because fraud in the inducement cannot be asserted in the face of a conspicuous limitation of liability contained in the sales contract, relying on Faulk v. Weller K-F Cars, Inc., 70 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1954). ' The Bank responds that the verdicts for it, both on plaintiffs claim and on its counterclaim, were supported by the evidence and law. Further, it contends that the verdicts against De Maria on the fraud claim but for the Bank on its c…
-
LOU Bachrodt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Savage, 570 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ANSTEAD, Judge, dissenting in part. I cannot agree that the representations claimed herein were sufficient to constitute fraud. Cf. Faulk v. Weller K-F Cars, Inc., 70 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1954).…1 / 2
-
Bates v. Messerli, 483 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…breach of the warranty only to the extent that the buyer had made a payment by reason of that breach and that the evidence showed no such payment by the buyer. In support of her argument the seller particularly cites Faulk v. Weller K-F Cars, Inc., 70 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1954), which held that a car buyer could not recover against the seller for fraudulent misrepresentation of the condition of the car when the sales contract contained a clause under which the seller agreed to pay a portion of the cost of certai…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence