Matthew and Shanna Edel appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Southtowne Motors of Newnan II, Inc. Southtowne in this action stemming from the sale of a used vehicle. The Edels assert that the trial court erred in granting Southtowne summary judgment on their claims under Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act FBPA, OCGA § 10-1-390 et seq., and on their claims for fraud, violation of the Georgia Used Car Dealer Statute, and revocation of acceptance under OCGA § 11-2-608. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9 11 56 c. We apply a de novo standard of review to an appeal from the grant of summary judgment, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Citations omitted. Sheats v. Kroger Co., 336 Ga. App. 307, 308 784 SE2d 442 2016. So viewed, the evidence showed that Matthew and Shanna Edel purchased a used 2010 Chevrolet Equinox from Southtowne on August 6, 2013. They took possession of the vehicle the next day on August 7. One year later, when the Edels sought to trade in the Equinox for another vehicle at another dealership, they were told that the Equinox had previously been in an accident and was a lemon buy back.1 A few months later, on October 22, 2014, they filed suit against Southtowne asserting violations of the FBPA and the Georgia Used Car Dealer Statute, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and a claim for revocation of acceptance. The Edels’ amended complaint added a count of fraud and a count of negligence against Southtowne. They alleged that they were never informed before purchasing the vehicle that it was a manufacturer’s buyback vehicle, that they were told that the vehicle had not been in any accidents, and that a Southtowne representative showed them a Carfax report affirming this statement. The Edels assert that they would have never purchased the vehicle had they known it was a manufacturer buyback that had previously been in an accident, and that the vehicle’s market value was substantially impaired.
