Raysoni v. Payless Auto Deals LLC

The trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings to the defendant car dealership on the plaintiff's Fair Business Practices Act claims alleging that the defendant gave false assurances that the used minivan he purchased had never been in a collision or otherwise damaged.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

To make out a claim at common law for fraud, a plaintiff must show not only that he relied upon some misrepresentation, but he must show as well that his reliance was reasonable.1 See Brown v. Techdata Corp., 238 Ga. 622, 624-625 234 SE2d 787 1977. The same is true of a claim under the Fair Business Practices Act of 1975, OCGA § 10-1-390 et seq., for consumer fraud.2 See Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 281 Ga. 137, 138-139 1 637 SE2d 14 2006. In this case, Subodh Raysoni asserts such claims against Payless Auto Deals, LLC,3 alleging that Payless gave false assurances that a used minivan never had been in a collision or otherwise damaged, assurances upon which he relied, he says, when he purchased the minivan from Payless. Contending that the terms of their written contract rendered any such reliance unreasonable as a matter of law, Payless moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted that motion, and in Raysoni v. Payless Auto Deals, LLC, 323 Ga. App. 583 753 SE2d 313 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, and we now reverse.

Whether it was reasonable for one to rely upon a certain misrepresentation is generally a question for a jury, see Akins v. Couch, 271 Ga. 276, 278 3 518 SE2d 674 1999, although in some cases, the answer may appear so clearly that the question can be decided by a court as a matter of law. See Novare Group v. Sarif, 290 Ga. 186, 190 3 718 SE2d 304 2011. For instance, when one has entered a contract with a binding and comprehensive merger clause, any reliance upon precontractual representations is, generally speaking, unreasonable as a matter of law. See First Data POS, Inc. v. Willis, 273 Ga. 792, 796 2 546 SE2d 781 2001. Likewise, when one is bound by a contract that includes terms that expressly, conspicuously, unambiguously, and squarely contradict precontractual representations, any reliance upon those precontractual representations may be deemed unreasonable as a matter of law. See Novare Group, 290 Ga. at 189-190 2.

Raysoni v. Payless Auto Deals LLC

The trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings to the defendant car dealership on the plaintiff's Fair Business Practices Act claims alleging that the defendant gave false assurances that the used minivan he purchased had never been in a collision or otherwise damaged.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report