Session March 22, 2017
from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 15C-3761
Kelvin D. Jones, Judge
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.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Court Affirmed and Remanded.
D. Travis, Lebanon, Tennessee, appellant, pro se.
Ferguson, Nashville, Tennessee, appellee, pro se.
Armstrong, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
J. Steven Stafford, P.J., W.S., and Brandon O. Gibson, J.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
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. 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.
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.
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 raises the following issues for review, as stated in
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 ...