Bickerstaff Automotive Inc. v. Tsepas

The UCC provision allowing a seller to cure a nonconforming delivery did not preclude plaintiff from rescinding her "new" car lease and suing defendants for fraud after she learned that the car had been wrecked.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Sharon Tsepas sued Bickerstaff Automotive d/b/a Peachtree Mitsubishi Peachtree, Shawn Fowler and Rufus Huff for fraudulently inducing her to lease a “new” car that actually had been wrecked and repaired.1 The jury found in favor of Tsepas against Peachtree and awarded compensatory damages of $14,727.88, which included attorney fees, and punitive damages of $53,000. The jury did not assess liability against Fowler or Huff. Peachtree appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by 1 denying its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict because it had the right to tender a replacement vehicle to Tsepas; 2 refusing to give its requested jury charge that it had the right to tender a replacement vehicle to Tsepas; 3 denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the verdict in favor of Fowler and Huff and against Peachtree was inconsistent; 4 refusing to amend the judgment to eliminate the attorney fees awarded to Tsepas 5 and denying its motion to reduce the punitive damage award. Finding no error, we affirm.

In April 1999, Sharon Tsepas went to Peachtree to lease a black Mitsubishi Montero Limited. Shawn Fowler, a Peachtree salesman, told Tsepas that they did not have one on the lot but that he could get her one in a few days. Fowler had Tsepas sign the paperwork and trade in her car for a black Montero that had not yet been located. In the interim, Peachtree loaned Tsepas a white Montero that had already been driven over 5000 miles. Tsepas was not interested in trading for the loaned vehicle because of the mileage.

Bickerstaff Automotive Inc. v. Tsepas

The UCC provision allowing a seller to cure a nonconforming delivery did not preclude plaintiff from rescinding her "new" car lease and suing defendants for fraud after she learned that the car had been wrecked.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report