of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts
Murray, Friedman Iverson, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for
respondent. Robert J. Bruno, Robert J. Bruno, Ltd.,
Burnsville, Minnesota; and Mark A. Olson, Olson Law Office,
Burnsville, Minnesota, for appellants.
F. Kautzer, Ruvelson & Kautzer, Ltd., Roseville,
Minnesota, for amicus curiae Northland Independent Auto
seller's fraudulent statements about the fitness of a
vehicle for the purpose for which it was purchased made
"as is" disclaimers in the purchase agreement
ineffective under Minn. Stat. § 336.2-316(3)(a) (2016).
Because the district court did not award a double recovery,
the court did not err in awarding damages under both fraud
and breach of an implied warranty theories of liability.
GILDEA, Chief Justice.
case we are asked to determine whether a seller's
fraudulent statements about the condition and fitness of a
vehicle being sold prevent the seller from enforcing
disclaimers in purchase documents stating that the buyer
purchased the vehicle "as is." The court of appeals
concluded that under Minn. Stat. § 336.2-316 (2016), the
seller's fraudulent statements prevented the seller from
enforcing the "as is" disclaimers. The court also
concluded that the district court did not err when it awarded
relief on both fraud and breach of warranty theories. Because
we conclude that fraudulent statements about the fitness of a
vehicle for the purpose for which it was purchased make
"as is" disclaimers ineffective and Sorchaga did
not doubly recovery, we affirm.
action arises from respondent Esmeralda Sorchaga's
purchase of a pickup truck from appellant Ride Auto, LLC.
Ride Auto purchased the truck from a salvage yard for $6,
770, knowing that the truck needed engine repairs. Ride Auto
made cosmetic and mechanical repairs sufficient to ensure
that the truck would look appealing and drive short distances
and then offered it for sale.
was interested in purchasing the truck and took it for a test
drive. The length of the test drive was very short because
the truck was low on fuel. But during the test drive,
Sorchaga noticed that the check-engine light was on. Ride
Auto's salesman told Sorchaga that the light was on
because the truck had a faulty oxygen sensor. He said that
the problem could be easily fixed, and that it would not
affect the truck's longevity. The salesman also told
Sorchaga that she could drive the truck with the check-engine
light on, and if she purchased the truck, she could return to
Ride Auto after a couple days to have the truck fixed.
Sorchaga also expressed concern about the smoke coming from
the tailpipe of the truck. The salesman told her that the
truck emitted smoke as it warmed up because the truck had a
asked whether Ride Auto could hook the truck up to a scanner
to determine why the check-engine light was on. An owner of
Ride Auto stated that Ride Auto could not do that because its
mechanic was uncertified. The salesman then told Sorchaga
again that a faulty oxygen sensor was the reason the
check-engine light was on.
of the sales process, Ride Auto told Sorchaga that she would
get a third-party warranty, the ASC Vehicle Protection Plan
(ASC agreement). Specifically, Ride Auto's owner told
Sorchaga that she would be given the ASC agreement at no
cost, and it would allow her to have the truck inspected
anywhere. The salesman added ...