Chrysler Motor Corp. v. Nail

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chrysler Motor Corp. v. Nail

317 So. 2d 147, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14158

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1975

DocketNo. 75-575

StatusPublished

This text of 317 So. 2d 147 (Chrysler Motor Corp. v. Nail) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chrysler Motor Corp. v. Nail, 317 So. 2d 147, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14158 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal of a summary final judgment entered in favor of appellee, Norman Nail, and against appellant, Chrysler Motor Corporation, on the issue of liability in an action seeking damages for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of warranty.

The pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions reveal that [148]*148there are geniiine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment; specifically, whether appellant through its regional service representative warranted or fraudulently represented to Appellee-Nail the new and unused condition of the Dodge Charger purchased by Appellee-Nail, and whether appellant was vicariously liable for warranties and fraudulent representations made by appellee, Jim Hooper Dodge, North, through its employees, concerning the new and unused condition of the Dodge Charger purchased by Appellee-Nail. Since fact issues exist, summary judgment was prematurely entered, and we therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed. Rule 1.510(c) Fla.RCP (1973); Leaks v. Adeimy, 195 So.2d 47 (Fla[App.1967).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CROSS, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal of a summary final judgment entered in favor of appellee, Norman Nail, and against appellant, Chrysler Motor Corporation, on the issue of liability in an action seeking damages for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of warranty.

The pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions reveal that [148]*148there are geniiine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment; specifically, whether appellant through its regional service representative warranted or fraudulently represented to Appellee-Nail the new and unused condition of the Dodge Charger purchased by Appellee-Nail, and whether appellant was vicariously liable for warranties and fraudulent representations made by appellee, Jim Hooper Dodge, North, through its employees, concerning the new and unused condition of the Dodge Charger purchased by Appellee-Nail. Since fact issues exist, summary judgment was prematurely entered, and we therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed. Rule 1.510(c) Fla.RCP (1973); Leaks v. Adeimy, 195 So.2d 47 (Fla[App.1967).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CROSS, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 So. 2d 147, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chrysler-motor-corp-v-nail-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack