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.

Blosser v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

May 31, 2018

JASON C. BLOSSER
v.
CYRUS JOHNSON, IV D/B/A THE RIVER CITY RIDES

          Session April 17, 2018

          Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-10-10473 JoeDae L. Jenkins, Chancellor

         This appeal deals only with the trial court's award of treble damages pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Finding no error, we affirm.

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

          Charles E. Waldman, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Cyrus Johnson, IV.

          Everett B. Gibson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jason C. Blosser.

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

          MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]

          BRANDON O. GIBSON, JUDGE

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This dispute involves the sale of a used car. Jason C. Blosser ("Buyer"), plaintiff and appellee, filed suit against Cyrus Johnson, IV ("Seller"), defendant and appellant, in Shelby County Chancery Court, seeking rescission and money damages, including damages pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-18-101, et. seq. ("TCPA").

         After a bench trial, the chancery court entered judgment in favor of Buyer and made the following findings of fact:

1. In March of 2010, Defendant, who at the time the cause of action arose, was a sole proprietor and operated a business selling used vehicles.
2. Defendant advertised a 1972 FJ40 Toyota Landcruiser automobile for sale on eBay.
3. Various conversations were had between Defendant and Plaintiff, wherein the Plaintiff was told that the vehicle was suitable for driving back and forth to work.
4. The Defendant's advertisements and statements painted the picture that the vehicle was "strong, very strong running, " "a true head turner, " "new paint, " "new upholstered seats, " "brand new ambulance style seats, " "brand new interior, " "painted tan" and "custom leather panels and hardtop."
5. After these discussions and representations, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the automobile for $9, 000. The purchase price was paid to Defendant by ...

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.