Gilbert v. Astro Lincoln Mercury, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gilbert v. Astro Lincoln Mercury, Inc.

496 So. 2d 987, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2328, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10419

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 1986

DocketNo. BM-285

StatusPublished

This text of 496 So. 2d 987 (Gilbert v. Astro Lincoln Mercury, Inc.) 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

Gilbert v. Astro Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 496 So. 2d 987, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2328, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10419 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

The Gilberts appeal a summary judgement for the defendants in a suit for breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Gilberts sought damages or replacement of an automobile sold to them by Astro Lincoln Mercury, Inc. (Astro) and manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford). Because Mr. Gilbert’s testimony concerning the number of opportunities afforded appellees to effect repairs during the warranty period substantially conflicts with the position asserted by ap-pellees that they were not given the opportunity to effect repairs, it was error for the trial court to enter summary judgment.

REVERSED.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

The Gilberts appeal a summary judgement for the defendants in a suit for breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Gilberts sought damages or replacement of an automobile sold to them by Astro Lincoln Mercury, Inc. (Astro) and manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford). Because Mr. Gilbert’s testimony concerning the number of opportunities afforded appellees to effect repairs during the warranty period substantially conflicts with the position asserted by ap-pellees that they were not given the opportunity to effect repairs, it was error for the trial court to enter summary judgment.

REVERSED.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 So. 2d 987, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2328, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-astro-lincoln-mercury-inc-fladistctapp-1986.