Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Travis v. Ferguson

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

May 3, 2017

BOB TRAVIS D/B/A TRAVIS COMPANY
v.
NATHAN FERGUSON D/B/A NORTHSIDE AUTO SALES

          Session March 22, 2017

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 15C-3761 Kelvin D. Jones, Judge

         Appellant purchased a vehicle, owned by Appellee, from an auto auction company. After the purchase, Appellant discovered that the vehicle's engine was defective, a fact that was not disclosed prior to sale. Appellant sought rescission of the purchase against Appellee but did not name the auto auction company as a defendant. Because the rescission and warranty of merchantability statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-2-608 and 47-2-314 require privity of contract between the buyer and the seller, and because the automobile auction statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-19-128 clearly identifies the auction company as the seller of the vehicle, we conclude that Appellant did not have a cause of action for rescission against Appellee. Affirmed and remanded.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded.

          Robert D. Travis, Lebanon, Tennessee, appellant, pro se.

          Nathan Ferguson, Nashville, Tennessee, appellee, pro se.

          Kenny Armstrong, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. Steven Stafford, P.J., W.S., and Brandon O. Gibson, J., joined.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]

          KENNY ARMSTRONG, JUDGE

          The vehicle at issue in this case is a 2006 Toyota Tundra. Appellee Nathan Ferguson purchased the vehicle from Clean Cars, LLC, on December 31, 2014.[2] At the time Mr. Ferguson purchased the vehicle, it had been vandalized and had no tires or rims. Mr. Ferguson had the vehicle towed directly to Auto Auctions, Inc. so that it could be sold. On March 12, 2015, Auto Auctions auctioned the vehicle, which had been designated as a "no run" vehicle, meaning that it had a bad transmission, locked motor, missing keys, bad fuel pump or other such problems. Auto Auctions' practice is to disclose a vehicle's problems, in writing, on the windshields of the vehicles it sells. Appellant Robert D. Travis testified that, prior to his purchase of the vehicle, he spoke with Mr. Ferguson on the lot, and Mr. Ferguson did not disclose any defects with the vehicle except for the missing tires. The vehicle had no defect noted on the windshield. Mr. Travis acknowledged the lack of wheels and also attempted to start the vehicle, but the engine would not start. The record contains a "Buyer's Guide, " indicating that the vehicle was sold "AS IS-NO WARRANTY, " but Mr. Travis disputes the lack of warranty, citing the implied warranty of merchantability, see infra.

         Mr. Travis was the successful bidder and purchased the vehicle at the auction for $5, 280.00. After purchasing the vehicle and fitting it with wheels, Mr. Travis had it taken to Affordable Auto Care. On March 27, 2015, Chris Warf, the owner of Affordable Auto Care, notified Mr. Travis that the vehicle would not start "because of cut and unconnected wires hidden under the dash." After reconnecting the wires, Mr. Warf advised Mr. Travis that the truck had a substantial "knock" in the engine such that the engine would need to be replaced. Mr. Travis made an immediate demand on Mr. Ferguson to rescind the transaction and refund the purchase price of $5, 280.00. Mr. Ferguson refused.

         On May 1, 2015, Mr. Travis filed suit against Mr. Ferguson in general sessions court, seeking to rescind his purchase of the 2006 Toyota Tundra. By order of September 28, 2015, the general sessions court held that Mr. Travis had not met his burden of proof and dismissed his complaint. Mr. Travis appealed to the circuit court. By order of March 11, 2016, the trial court dismissed Mr. Travis' complaint. Mr. Travis appeals.

         II. Issues

         Mr. Travis raises the following issues for review, as stated in his brief:

1. Whether Appellant may revoke acceptance for the purchase of a vehicle pursuant to T.C.A. 47-2-608 even though Appellee is relying on disclaimers of warranty ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.