White v. Smedley's Chevrolet , 2016 Ohio 968 ( 2016 )

[Cite as White v. Smedley's Chevrolet, 2016-Ohio-968.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
SAYLOR WHITE :
:
Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 26637
:
v. : T.C. NO. CVF14-00989
:
SMEDLEY’S CHEVROLET : (Civil Appeal from
: Municipal Court)
Defendant-Appellee :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the ___11th___ day of ___ March____, 2016.
...........
SAYLOR WHITE, 326 Walton Avenue, Dayton, Ohio 45417
Plaintiff-Appellant
MICHAEL C. MAHONEY, Atty. Reg. No. 0080111 and SEAN A. GRAVES, Atty. Reg. No.
0088233 and STEPHEN V. FREEZE, Atty. Reg. No. 0012173, Fifth Third Center, 1 S.
Main Street, Suite 1800, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
.............
FROELICH, J.
{¶ 1} Saylor White, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the Vandalia Municipal
Court, which granted summary judgment to Smedley’s Chevrolet on White’s claims. For
-2-
the following reasons, the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.
I. Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On or about June 25, 2012, White purchased a used 2008 Chevrolet Impala
with approximately 78,000 miles from Smedley’s Chevrolet (“Smedley’s”) in Vandalia.
White also bought a third-party warranty/service contract from GWC Warranty for $1,500.
White financed the entire purchase amount of $13,422, which included the vehicle
($13,350), service contract ($1,500), documentary fee ($250), tax ($1,057), and title fee
($15), minus a trade-in allowance of $2,750. (Def.’s Ex. D.) According to White,
Smedley’s used “high pressure” tactics to induce the purchase. After the sale, the
Impala allegedly had numerous maintenance issues, and White repeatedly brought the
vehicle to Smedley’s and other repair centers for service. The repairs allegedly were not
covered by the GWC Warranty service contract and Smedley’s allegedly failed to repair
certain items that it had agreed to repair. In January 2014, White sold the vehicle to his
father so that he could pay off the loan.
{¶ 3} On June 24, 2014, White filed a Complaint in the municipal court, alleging
that Smedley’s engaged in a variety of wrongful conduct related to White’s purchase of
the Impala. White alleged that Smedley’s sold the vehicle to him for an amount greater
than agreed upon, that he was pressured into purchasing the vehicle, that the vehicle was
a “lemon,” that Smedley’s knew of the problems with the vehicle, and that Smedley’s
failed to honor its contracts with White. White alleged three causes of action, claiming
that Smedley’s engaged in (1) price shifting and changing of the quoted and promised
price, (2) unscrupulous sales tactics and misrepresentation of its products, and (3) breach
of contract and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. White sought
-3-
$15,000, plus interest.
{¶ 4} Smedley’s filed an Answer to White’s complaint, denying the allegations.
{¶ 5} On September 26, 2014, Smedley’s moved to have its Request for
Admissions deemed admitted. The Request for Admissions asked White to admit “that
you purchased the vehicle in an ‘as-is’ condition” and that he “signed the document
attached hereto as Exhibit A regarding the ‘as-is’ sale of the vehicle.” Counsel for
Smedley’s submitted an affidavit stating that Smedley’s had served White with its Request
for Admissions on August 14, 2014, and as of September 24, 2014, White had not
responded. White did not respond to Smedley’s motion, and the trial court granted it.
{¶ 6} White’s deposition was taken on December 3, 2014; a transcript of the
deposition and the accompanying exhibits were filed with the trial court.
{¶ 7} On December 9, 2014, Smedley’s moved for summary judgment. It
asserted that the uncontroverted facts established that White voluntarily signed a sales
contract, which specified the price, taxes and fees, trade-in allowance, and financing
balance; Smedley’s stated that “[t]he contract and all pricing were transparent.”
Smedley’s further argued that White purchased the vehicle in “as is” condition, and White
had no evidence to establish breach of contract or of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices
Act. Smedley’s supported its motion with White’s deposition testimony and
accompanying exhibits and White’s deemed admissions.
{¶ 8} White opposed the motion, and he supported his version of events with a
sworn “verification” that the statement of facts contained in his opposition memorandum
was “true to the best of his knowledge and belief.” White also filed numerous documents
(several which were identical to those relied upon by Smedley’s), photographs, a video
-4-
recording of the Impala, and audio recordings; these exhibits were filed as his “Disclosure
of Trial Exhibits,” but they were referenced in his opposition memorandum. Finally,
White filed a motion for sanctions against Smedley’s, claiming that Smedley’s failed to
answer White’s interrogatories and to produce documents in a timely manner.
{¶ 9} The trial court granted Smedley’s motion for summary judgment and denied
White’s motion for sanctions. In granting judgment to Smedley’s, the trial court
emphasized that White test drove the vehicle twice, purchased the Impala “as is,” and
had an opportunity to review the documentation that he signed, but chose not to do so.
The court found, as a matter of law, that White was presented an opportunity to read the
documents and signed them voluntarily, that the “as is” provision obligated White to take
the vehicle as it was found, including any defects or problems, and that White voluntarily
purchased a warranty from Smedley’s for $1,500. The court concluded that there was
no breach of contract and that White had not established any violation of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act. The court entered judgment in favor of Smedley’s on
White’s claims.
{¶ 10} White appeals from the trial court’s judgment, claiming that the trial court
erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley’s.
II. Summary Judgment Standard
{¶ 11} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is proper when (1) there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds, after construing the evidence most strongly in
favor of the nonmoving party, can only conclude adversely to that party. Zivich v. Mentor
Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St. 3d 367, 369-370, 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998). The moving party
-5-
carries the initial burden of affirmatively demonstrating that no genuine issue of material
fact remains to be litigated. Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St. 3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798
(1988). To this end, the movant must be able to point to evidentiary materials of the type
listed in Civ.R. 56(C) that a court is to consider in rendering summary judgment. Dresher
v. Burt, 75 Ohio St. 3d 280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996).
{¶ 12} Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party may not
rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party’s pleadings. Dresher at 293; Civ.R.
56(E). Rather, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to respond, with affidavits
or as otherwise permitted by Civ.R. 56, setting forth specific facts that show that there is
a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. Throughout, the evidence must be
construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.
{¶ 13} We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment de
novo. Schroeder v. Henness, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2012 CA 18, 2013-Ohio-2767, ¶ 42.
De novo review means that this court uses the same standard that the trial court should
have used, and we examine the evidence, without deference to the trial court, to
determine whether, as a matter of law, no genuine issues exist for trial. Ward v. Bond,
2d Dist. Champaign No. 2015-CA-2, 2015-Ohio-4297, ¶ 8.
III. Evidence Submitted for Summary Judgment Motion
A. Smedley’s Evidence
{¶ 14} Smedley’s evidence in support of its summary judgment establishes the
following facts.
{¶ 15} At the time of the deposition, White was 48 years old. He had three years
of college education. When White was in his early 20s, he worked for about a year as a
-6-
salesman for Voss, an automobile dealership, and he worked for another dealership
detailing cars. White has purchased several vehicles in the past, and he has filed
lawsuits against other dealerships due to alleged discrepancies in the purchase price and
the quality of repairs.
{¶ 16} On June 25, 2012, White was headed to an Auto Expressions dealership to
view an Impala, when he stopped at Smedley’s Chevrolet in Vandalia. (White Depo. at
58-60.) At Smedley’s, White spoke with a salesperson about an Impala. The
salesperson asked, “What can we do to get you in this car?” (Id. at 61.) White test
drove the Impala down the street with the salesperson. (Id. at 65.) White stated that he
informed the salesperson that the brakes shook badly when pressed. (Id.) White
acknowledged that he did not report a problem with the brakes in his interrogatory
responses, but he said he had forgotten about this test drive when he completed those
responses. (Id. at 67.)
{¶ 17} After the test drive with the salesperson, White, in his own car, went to Auto
Expressions and test drove the Impala from that dealership to Smedley’s and back. (Id.)
White returned to Smedley’s in his own vehicle and drove Smedley’s Impala, by himself,
for approximately 20 to 30 minutes, driving it to the other dealership and back. (Id. at
64.) Auto Expressions offered to sell its Impala to White for $14,500, plus taxes and
fees; Auto Expressions did not permit White to trade-in his vehicle. (Def.’s Ex. Z.)
{¶ 18} White testified that Smedley’s promised to sell the Impala for $13,000, an
amount that White claimed was $500 less than what Auto Expressions was offering.
(White Depo. at 61, 85.) White further testified that he and Smedley’s used car sales
manager, Don Johnson, had an agreement that Smedley’s would fix certain problems
-7-
with the vehicle, including the removal of a pinstripe on the front fender. (Id. at 54-55.)
White also stated that he told Johnson that he “needed $3,500 out of my car * * * and he
[the sales manager] said he was going to * * * see * * * about getting me that.” (Id. at
71.) White testified that Johnson had someone check over White’s car. White further
testified that the sales manager said he would give White $3,500 for the trade-in if White
would take the Impala home that night. (Id. at 73.) White stated that he “didn’t find out
that I didn’t [get $3,500] until that night after I started to notice things, go over the
paperwork, figured it out that I didn’t.” (Id. at 72.)
{¶ 19} White stated that some of his agreement with the sales manager was written
down, but it was “verbally mostly.” White stated that he signed the Buyer’s Guide and
Warranty Disclaimer, despite the verbal agreement, because of the GWC Warranty he
purchased for $1,500. (Id. at 55.) White testified that he did not read the documents
before he signed them. He testified, “[W]e were going back and forth. He kept putting
things up for me to sign and stuff. All of it was in a pile. So, no, I didn’t take out every
one and read it and, you know. I just assumed that he [the sales manager] was being
aboveboard with me.” (Id. at 72.)
{¶ 20} On June 25, White signed a purchase agreement to buy the Impala for
$13,350, plus a service contract ($1,500), documentary fee ($250), tax ($1,057), and title
fee ($15), minus a trade-in allowance of $2,000. (Def.’s Ex. C.) The total price was
$14,172. (Id.) White further testified that he signed the 3 Day Used Vehicle Exchange
Policy (Def.’s Ex. G), the Limited Right to Cancel – Purchase (Def.’s Ex. H), and the
Delivery Report (Def.’s Ex. K.) (White Depo. at 75.) The Delivery Report did not identify
any items that Smedley’s agreed to repair post-delivery of the vehicle to White. White
-8-
also acknowledged signing the Odometer Disclosure Statement (Def.’s Ex. I), although
he believed the actual mileage at the time of purchase was 300 or 400 miles more than
stated. (White Depo. at 76-77.)
{¶ 21} White testified that he signed the documents, but he did not have an
opportunity to review them. White explained that the “only time I went over to the office
was to sign the documents, and basically I just signed the documents. * * * I wasn’t looking
over them. * * * I just assumed that they were correct.” (Id. at 34.) When asked if he
was prevented from looking over the documents, White responded, “I don’t recall. I don’t
think so.” (Id.) White acknowledged that he could have reviewed the documents before
he signed them. (Id. at 35.)
{¶ 22} White understood that, when he purchased the Impala, the vehicle was sold
in an “as is” condition. (Id. at 36; Request for Admissions.) When shown the “Buyer’s
Guide” (Def.’s Ex. E), which explained that “as is” means that there is no warranty, White
stated that he signed it, but he “didn’t bother to read that at the time.” (White Depo. at
37.) White also indicated that he signed the “As Is Dealer Warranty Disclaimer” (Def.’s
Ex. F), but he did not read the document before he signed it. (White Depo. at 38.)
{¶ 23} White signed a second purchase agreement, which increased the trade-in
allowance to $2,750, but was otherwise the same in terms of cost; the total cost was
reduced to $13,422. (Def.’s Ex. D.) The second purchase agreement also differed in
that a “See Vehicle Delivery Report Attached” box was marked. The second purchase
agreement was dated June 25, 2012 (the same day as the first contract), but White
testified that it was actually executed on June 26, 2012.
{¶ 24} White identified Defendant’s Exhibit L, a second Delivery Report, dated
-9-
June 25, which indicated that Smedley’s would perform certain repairs: (1) run ozone in
vehicle, (2) replace pinstripes on fender, (3) repair moon roof, (4) reclean vehicle, and (5)
provide one key fob. White stated that, as different items were negotiated, the
salesperson would write out another document. (White Depo. at 79.) Defendant’s
Exhibit M, titled “We Owe,” was a document that indicated Smedley’s obligation to
perform the work listed in Exhibit L. Both the Vehicle Delivery Report and the We Owe
document required White to make an appointment within 30 days to have those items
repaired.
{¶ 25} White acknowledged that he signed a Promissory Note and Disclosure
Statement with MidUSA; that document itemized the cost of the vehicle, taxes, fees, and
other items that were financed. (Def.’s Ex. O; White Depo. at 80-81.) The total amount
financed was $13,422, the reduced amount. White identified the contract application for
the warranty, and the warranty contract cancellation request, dated February 7, 2013
(Def.’s Ex. V, Def.’s Ex. W; White Depo. at 81-82.)
{¶ 26} White stated that the salesperson talked him into getting the warranty, but
he acknowledged that he could have declined the warranty. (White Depo. at 86-87.)
According to the GWC Warranty Contract Application, White selected a “comprehensive”
plan for the term of 36 months or 38,000 miles with a $100 deductible. The available
plans were a powertrain, standard, comprehensive, or ultra plans; various terms were
available, ranging from 90 days/4,500 miles to 48 months/50,000 miles.
{¶ 27} White testified that he noticed several problems with the vehicle after he
took the vehicle home that day (June 25). The problems, many of which were listed in a
Better Business Bureau complaint, included that the car shook badly when the brakes
-10-
were engaged, the roof opened but would not close, the power locks did not work
correctly, the car had only one key fob, the pinstripes were put on crookedly, and the
vehicle was in bad condition. (White Depo. at 68.) White’s interrogatory responses
identified numerous additional alleged problems with the Impala. (Def.’s Ex. A.) White
stated that he brought the car back to Smedley’s the next day (June 26) and asked to
rescind the contract. (White Depo. at 68-69.) White testified that Smedley’s “said they
were going to fix everything that was wrong with it.” (Id. at 70.)
{¶ 28} White testified that Smedley’s corrected the pinstripe on the front fenders
and put a “temporary fix” on the roof. (Id. at 74.) White stated that he bought a new key
fob himself. (Id.)
{¶ 29} White owned the vehicle for approximately 18 months. (Id. at 41.)
Between June 2012 (when he purchased the vehicle) and February 2013, he had driven
approximately 10,000 miles with the vehicle. (Id. at 42.) White stated that he took the
Impala to Martin’s Auto on three occasions for repairs: (1) August 24, 2012 for $570.18;
(2) September 30, 2012 for $1,162.06; and (3) an unspecified time for $335.40. (Id. at
52.) White testified that he also paid Smedley’s for fixing the brakes, and he paid Midas
to repair the wheel assembly. (Id. at 53.) White’s interrogatory responses listed repair
costs totaling $8,900. (Def.’s Ex. A.) White stated that, every time he took his car to
Smedley’s for repairs, he was told that the repairs were not covered under his warranty.
(White Depo. at 94-95.) After White complained to the Better Business Bureau,
approximately $1,000 of the warranty/service contract cost was refunded. (Id. at 56.)
{¶ 30} From February 2013 until January 2014, White did not drive the Impala,
because it needed a catalytic converter. (Id. at 43.) He stored the vehicle in his cousin’s
-11-
garage; White was not charged to store the vehicle. (Id. at 43-44.) White testified that
he sold the Impala to his father in January 2014, and that his father had paid the remaining
balance on the vehicle loan, which was approximately $9,000. (Id. at 39, 41.) Between
July 2012 and January 2014, White had made monthly loan payments of $243 to MidUSA.
(Id. at 47-48.)
B. White’s Evidence
{¶ 31} White opposed Smedley’s motion for summary judgment, providing
numerous documents, many of which are the same as the exhibits discussed at his
deposition. White also submitted Smedley’s responses to his first set of interrogatories,
White’s credit application with MidUSA, service invoices for work performed by Smedley’s
on six occasions (July 5, 2012; July 19, 2012; August 13, 2012; October 3, 2012;
November 12, 2012; January 21, 2013), White’s credit report, trade-in estimates for the
Impala, a printout of BBB complaints against Smedley’s, printouts of case law, and
Smedley’s response to White’s first request for production of documents. White also
provided two CDs with photos, video, and audio recordings. He further provided a sworn
verification that his statement of facts were true to the best of his knowledge and belief.1
{¶ 32} According to White, he saw an Impala at Smedley’s as he was on his way
to another dealership, Auto Expressions. White test drove the Impala with a
salesperson. After they returned, White met the used car sales manager, Dan Johnson.
1
Smedley’s did not move to strike or otherwise object to White’s evidence in the trial
court. Accordingly, Smedley’s has waived any error in the consideration of White’s
evidence in ruling on the summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Davenport v. Big
Brothers & Big Sisters of Greater Miami Valley, Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23659,
2010-Ohio-2503, ¶ 41, fn. 6, citing Darner v. Richard E. Jacobs Group, Inc., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 89611, 2008-Ohio-959, ¶ 15; A-M.R. v. Columbus City Sch. Dist., 2015-
Ohio-3781, 41 N.E.3d 489, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.).
-12-
White states that Johnson “was in high pressure mode, wanting to sale [sic] this car to
Plaintiff, so that he would not buy the car he was on his way to negotiate for.” White
drove back and forth between the two dealerships, “hoping this would work to his
advantage and make the other dealership lower its price on the other car.” White states
that Auto Expressions agreed to drop its price from $14,500 to $13,500; White submitted
an unidentified handwritten note to substantiate that statement (Plaintiff’s Ex. I.).
{¶ 33} According to White’s statements of facts, Johnson made various statements
to induce White to purchase Smedley’s Impala that day. Johnson agreed to beat Auto
Expression’s price by $500, he agreed to pay $3,500 for White’s trade-in, and Johnson
asserted that the car was a better value and that “someone is going to snatch that car up
real soon.” White stated that he told Johnson that he wanted to think about the car
overnight, but Johnson pressured him, offering to “throw in a bumper to bumper warranty”
for $1,500 rather than the usual $2,000 cost. White stated that, “[a]fter considering what
I thought was a pretty good deal, I finally agreed to the terms of what we had discussed.”
White stated that the process took about 3 hours.
{¶ 34} White stated that he signed a document that Johnson presented and then
waited about 30 minutes while the finance office prepared the paperwork. White
indicated that, during those 30 minutes, he transferred his personal belongings from his
trade-in vehicle and a Smedley’s employee switched his license plates. When White
went to the finance office, he “signed papers, not actually paying close attention or reading
the paperwork * * *. As it goes on and I just sign where she tells me to and she puts it in
an envelope and hands it to me and I take it and walk out of the office.”
{¶ 35} White stated that he noticed several problems with the car as he drove it
-13-
home. He looked over the paperwork when he got home and was “shocked” to find that
it did not reflect the agreement he had discussed with Johnson.
{¶ 36} White stated that he returned the next morning and told Johnson that he
wanted to rescind the purchase; White states that Johnson responded. “Well you bought
the car now, so it’s your problem.” White states that Johnson eventually stated that
Smedley’s would do “whatever it takes to make this right” and “fix whatever needs to be
fixed.” White stated that Johnson went into the office and returned with revised
paperwork (which increased the trade-in value), but it did not reflect the oral agreement.
{¶ 37} White stated that the vehicle has had numerous problems, and his
statement of facts asserts that the problems are consistent with a vehicle that has been
in a flood.
{¶ 38} Plaintiff’s Ex. E, one of the CDs, contained close-up photographs of various
parts of the car and a video of the Impala running, showing the service notices on the
dashboard and the sound of the vehicle while running. Plaintiff’s Ex. G, the second CD,
contained audio recordings of several telephone calls between White and various
employees of Smedley’s; the conversations primarily relate to White’s cancellation of his
warranty and vehicle repairs.
IV. Summary Judgment Analysis
{¶ 39} White’s complaint alleged three causes of action, which we will address in
turn.
A. Price Shifting
{¶ 40} In his first cause of action, White alleged that Smedley’s engaged in price-
shifting by not selling the Impala for the orally agreed-upon price.
-14-
{¶ 41} “[P]arties to contracts are presumed to have read and understood them and
* * * a signatory is bound by a contract that he or she willingly signed.” Preferred Capital,
Inc. v. Power Engineering Group, Inc., 112 Ohio St. 3d 429, 2007-Ohio-257, 860 N.E.2d
741, ¶ 10.
Even when there is misrepresentation by one party of the contents of an
agreement, the agreement is not void for fraud in the factum when the
signer has an opportunity to read and understand the documents before
execution. A person of ordinary mind cannot say that he or she is misled
into signing an agreement that is different from the agreement the person
intended to sign, when that person could have ascertained what agreement
he was entering into by merely reading it when he signed it. If a person
can read and is not prevented from reading what he signs, then he alone is
responsible for his omission to read what he signs.
(Citations omitted.) W.K. v. Farrell, 167 Ohio App. 3d 14, 2006-Ohio-2676, 853 N.E.2d
728, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 42} In this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact that White was
presented with various sales documents, including a purchase agreement, Buyer’s Guide,
Warranty Disclaimer, As Is Dealer Warranty Disclaimer, the 3 Day Used Vehicle
Exchange Policy, the Limited Right to Cancel – Purchase, Delivery Report, the Odometer
Disclosure Statement (Def.’s Ex. I), and a Promissory Note and Disclosure Statement
with MidUSA. The purchase agreement and the Promissory Note and Disclosure
Statement both itemized the cost of the vehicle, taxes, trade-in value, and fees associated
with the purchase. The documents also indicated that White was purchasing the Impala
-15-
“as is.” The Buyer’s Guide expressly stated, “AS IS – NO WARRANTY. You will pay
all costs for any repairs. The dealer assumes no responsibility for any repairs regardless
of any oral statements about the vehicle.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 43} White signed each of these documents, and he repeatedly acknowledged
that he chose not to read them before signing. White explained his failure to read them
by stating that he trusted Smedley’s to complete the documents in accordance with their
oral agreement and that he did not pay close attention. White presented no evidence
that Smedley’s prevented him or discouraged him from reading the documents or that
Smedley’s told him that the terms of the documents would not apply to him.
{¶ 44} Having elected not to read the sales and financing documents, White cannot
now argue that Smedley’s did not honor the price to which it allegedly had orally agreed.
The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Smedley’s on White’s claim of
price shifting.
B. Unscrupulous Sales Tactics and Misrepresented Products
{¶ 45} In his second cause of action, White claimed that Smedley’s engaged in
unscrupulous sales tactics and misrepresented products. He alleged that Smedley’s
used high pressure tactics to push him to purchase a “lemon” and that Smedley’s
misrepresented that the vehicle was in good condition and pressured him to buy a
“worthless warranty.” He further alleged that Smedley’s failed to disclose preexisting
damage and to repair problems that it had agreed to repair. White asserted that
Smedley’s caused additional damage to the vehicle.
{¶ 46} Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to White, White has
failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that Smedley’s engaged in unscrupulous
-16-
sales tactics when it sold the vehicle to him. White’s deposition testimony and statement
of facts indicate that White was contemplating the purchase of an Impala from two
dealerships on June 25, 2012, and that he drove the Impalas to the other dealership in
an effort to negotiate the best deal from both dealerships. White’s statement of facts in
his memorandum in opposition to summary judgment expressly states that White “drove
the car [Smedley’s Impala] to the other dealership, really hoping this would work to his
advantage and make the other dealership lower its price on the other car and it worked,
the other dealership lowered its price.”
{¶ 47} According to the proposed sales agreement from Auto Expressions
(Plaintiff’s Ex. I), the Auto Expressions Impala had approximately 15,000 less mileage
(63,788) than Smedley’s Impala (78,089), but Auto Expressions was offering its Impala
for $14,500, with an extended service contract of $1,495, documentary fee of $200, and
sales tax of $1,133.65; with the title fee, the total cost would have been $17,343.65.
White stated that Auto Expressions reduced its price to $13,500 in response to White’s
interest in Smedley’s Impala, and he offered a handwritten note on blank paper stating
that an “07 Impala SS 13,995” was “negotiated to $13,5K to bargain price of Smedley’s
offering.” (Plaintiff’s Ex. I); the note does not indicate who wrote the note, when the note
was written, and whether that 2007 Impala was located at Auto Expressions. There is
no documentation from Auto Expressions reflecting White’s negotiations.
{¶ 48} White’s evidence reflects that, in response to the knowledge that White was
contemplating the purchase of an Impala from another dealership, Johnson tried to induce
White to purchase Smedley’s Impala asking what he needed to do to get White to buy
from Smedley’s. According to White, Johnson told White that other customers were
-17-
looking at Smedley’s Impala, and Johnson offered incentives to make the deal more
attractive than Auto Expression’s, such as by offering a reduced price on the vehicle, a
trade-in for the car, and a reduced price on a warranty. Johnson urged White to buy the
Impala that day.
{¶ 49} White stated at oral argument that he remembered only one test drive on
June 25, 2012. However, his deposition testimony and statement of facts both indicate
that he drove Smedley’s Impala on two occasions prior to the purchase. He drove the
vehicle once with an employee and a second time by himself for 20 to 30 minutes; White
indicated that the second test drive was to Auto Expressions. White stated in his
deposition that he informed the salesperson at Smedley’s that the brakes shook badly
when pressed. The evidence reflects that, at the time of purchase, White was aware of
one potential problem with the vehicle, and there is no evidence that Smedley’s was
aware of additional problems yet failed to disclose them. White has not identified any
evidence that Smedley’s caused additional damage to the vehicle at any time.
{¶ 50} According to White, after about three hours, he believed he had reached a
“pretty good deal” with Smedley’s. Construing the evidence in White’s favor, White has
failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding his
negotiations with Smedley’s, and we conclude, as a matter of law, that Smedley’s was
entitled to summary judgment on White’s claim that it engaged in unscrupulous behavior
when it sold the vehicle to White.
{¶ 51} White further claims that Smedley’s represented that it would repair certain
items, but failed to do so. White purchased the Impala “as is,” and he signed documents
explaining that “as is” meant that Smedley’s would assume “no responsibility for any
-18-
repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle” (Def.’s Ex. E.), and that the
vehicle was being sold without any warranty (Def.’s Ex. F.)
{¶ 52} According to the second purchase contract, however, Smedley’s sold the
Impala to White subject to the Vehicle Delivery Report, which was attached (Def.’s Ex.
D). The Vehicle Delivery Report indicated that Smedley’s had agreed to provide certain
services, namely: (1) run ozone in vehicle, (2) replace pinstripes on fender, (3) repair
moon roof, (4) reclean vehicle, and (5) provide one key fob. The “We Owe” document,
dated June 26, 2012, reiterated this obligation. (Def.’s Ex. M.) Both the Vehicle
Delivery Report and “We Owe” document stated that the repair obligation was valid for
30 days. White acknowledged that Smedley’s attempted to repair the moon roof and
that Smedley’s corrected the pinstripe on the front fenders. Although there is no
evidence that Smedley’s made all of the additional repairs to which it agreed, White has
presented no evidence that he brought his vehicle to Smedley’s for those repairs within
30 days of June 26, 2012.
{¶ 53} Next, White alleges that Smedley’s pressured him to purchase a “worthless
warranty.” He states that Johnson had said it would be a “bumper to bumper warranty.”
According to the GWC Warranty Contract Application, White selected a “comprehensive”
plan for the term of 36 months or 38,000 miles with a $100 deductible. White stated at
his deposition that Smedley’s salesperson talked him into getting a warranty, but he
presented no evidence that Smedley’s used unscrupulous sales tactics to induce the
purchase of a GWC warranty. White acknowledged at his deposition that he could have
declined the warranty, and his testimony reflected that he considered the GWC warranty
because the car was being sold “as is.”
-19-
{¶ 54} The only evidence before us regarding the terms of the GWC warranty is
the GWC Warranty Contract Application. That document does not detail what is covered
by GWC’s “comprehensive” warranty, but makes clear that White was contracting with
GWC and was agreeing to various terms and conditions included in that company’s
extended service contract. White repeatedly stated that he did not read the documents
presented by Smedley’s, and he could not rely on Johnson’s representation that the GWC
warranty was “bumper to bumper.”
{¶ 55} Finally, although not specifically raised by White, White has not presented
evidence that Smedley’s engaged in improper practices by presenting him with a second
purchase contract and Vehicle Delivery Report, which White asserts were signed on June
26, the day after he took possession of the vehicle. There was no evidence that the
original purchase agreement was cancelled and that White should have been presented
with a complete new set of purchase documents. Accepting White’s evidence as true,
White returned to Smedley’s on June 26 and asked to rescind his purchase, but Johnson
told him that Smedley’s would not agree to that. White’s evidence demonstrates that, as
an accommodation to White, Smedley’s agreed to increase the trade-in value and to
repair certain items. There is no suggestion by White or otherwise that the purchase
documents he signed on June 25 no longer applied.
{¶ 56} Moreover, the documents that White signed on June 25 reflected that White
had no right to rescind the purchase on June 26. The 3-Day Used Vehicle Exchange
policy generally allowed a buyer to return the purchased used vehicle, within three days
and for any reason, and receive a credit toward another Smedley’s vehicle. However
that document expressly stated that “‘As Is’ vehicles are EXCLUDED and DO NOT
-20-
CARRY the Exchange Offer.” The Limited Right to Cancel document permitted the
parties to cancel the sale if White’s financing fell through; the evidence reflects that
White’s financing through MidUSA was approved. Accordingly, there is no evidence that
Smedley’s was obligated to allow White to return the Impala and cancel their agreement.
{¶ 57} Upon review of the evidence, the trial court properly granted summary
judgment to Smedley’s on White’s claims of unscrupulous sales tactics.
C. Breach of Contract and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
{¶ 58} White’s third cause of action alleged breach of contract and violations of the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. White’s breach of contract claim reiterates the
allegations in his first and second causes of action. For the reasons stated above, the
trial court properly granted summary judgment for breach of contract.
{¶ 59} The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act prohibits unfair or deceptive or
unconscionable acts or practices in connection with consumer transactions. R.C.
1345.02; R.C. 1345.03. “[T]he CSPA defines ‘unfair or deceptive consumer sales
practices’ as those that mislead consumers about the nature of the product they are
receiving, while ‘unconscionable acts or practices’ relate to a supplier manipulating a
consumer’s understanding of the nature of the transaction at issue.” Johnson v.
Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278, 2005-Ohio-4985, 834 N.E.2d 791.
{¶ 60} Deceptive acts or practices include:
(a) That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard,
quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not;
(b) That a specific price advantage exists, if it does not;
(c) That a consumer transaction involves or does not involve a warranty, a
-21-
disclaimer of warranties or other rights, remedies, or obligations if the
representation is false.
R.C. 1345.02(B)(2), (8), (10). In determining whether a particular act or practice is
unconscionable, the following circumstances must be taken into account:
(1) Whether the supplier has knowingly taken advantage of the inability of
the consumer reasonably to protect the consumer’s interests because of
the consumer’s physical or mental infirmities, ignorance, illiteracy, or
inability to understand the language of an agreement;
(2) Whether the supplier knew at the time the consumer transaction was
entered into that the price was substantially in excess of the price at which
similar property or services were readily obtainable in similar consumer
transactions by like consumers;
(3) Whether the supplier knew at the time the consumer transaction was
entered into of the inability of the consumer to receive a substantial benefit
from the subject of the consumer transaction;
(4) Whether the supplier knew at the time the consumer transaction was
entered into that there was no reasonable probability of payment of the
obligation in full by the consumer;
(5) Whether the supplier required the consumer to enter into a consumer
transaction on terms the supplier knew were substantially one-sided in favor
of the supplier;
(6) Whether the supplier knowingly made a misleading statement of opinion
on which the consumer was likely to rely to the consumer’s detriment;
-22-
(7) Whether the supplier has, without justification, refused to make a refund
in cash or by check for a returned item that was purchased with cash or by
check, unless the supplier had conspicuously posted in the establishment
at the time of the sale a sign stating the supplier’s refund policy.
R.C. 1345.03(B).
{¶ 61} White asserts that Smedley’s actions in connection with his purchase of the
Impala violated the OCSPA, but he does not identify the specific subsection that
Smedley’s violated. Considering the evidence presented in the trial court and construing
it in the light most favorable to White, we find no evidence to support a conclusion that
Smedley’s misled White about the nature of the product he received (the Impala) or that
Smedley’s manipulated his understanding of the nature of their transaction. The trial
court did not err in granting summary judgment to Smedley’s on White’s OCSPA claim.
{¶ 62} At oral argument, White also asserted that Smedley’s violated the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq., and various provisions of the
Ohio Administrative Code. White did not raise these additional allegations before the
trial court, and we will not consider them.
V. Conclusion
{¶ 63} The trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.
.............
FAIN, J., and HALL, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Saylor White
Michael C. Mahoney
Sean A. Graves
Stephen V. Freeze
-23-
Hon. Cynthia M. Heck