Carlson v. General Motors Corp.
883 F.2d 287, 11 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 14, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 12454 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court cannot dismiss a claim that durational limitations on implied warranties are unconscionable solely on the pleadings without affording parties an opportunity to present evidence of the commercial setting; however, the implied warranty of merchantability does not cover claims for lost resale value when the product itself functions for its ordinary purpose.
Facts:
- General Motors Corporation (GM) manufactured 5.1-liter diesel automobile engines for model years 1981 through 1985.
- Plaintiffs purchased GM vehicles equipped with these diesel engines.
- GM's express warranties for 1981 and 1982 model year engines expired after 24 months or 24,000 miles, and for 1983-1985 models, after 36 months or 50,000 miles.
- GM's warranty documents included provisions purporting to limit the operation of any implied warranties to the same duration as the express warranties.
- Some plaintiffs encountered substantial mechanical difficulties with their diesel cars only after all applicable express and purportedly implied warranties had expired.
- These plaintiffs alleged that GM knew of inherent defects in the diesel engines and failed to warn its customers, and that due to unequal bargaining power and lack of competition, they had no meaningful alternative but to accept the limited warranties.
- Other plaintiffs did not allege that their individual diesel vehicles were defective or experienced problems, but rather claimed that the "poor reputation" of GM's diesel products generally diminished the "resale value" of their cars.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, including 183 named claimants and a prospective class of GM diesel car owners, filed an amended complaint against General Motors Corporation (GM) in the district court (court of first instance), alleging defective engines, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
- GM filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss certain claims made by the plaintiffs.
- The district court dismissed the claims of 130 named plaintiffs, specifically those who alleged engine problems only after warranties expired and those who claimed damages for lost resale value without alleging actual engine defects.
- The district court concurrently denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and add additional claimants to satisfy the 100-named-plaintiff requirement for Magnuson-Moss class actions.
- The district court entered a final judgment against the dismissed plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), finding no just reason for delay, thereby allowing these plaintiffs to immediately appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the district court err by dismissing claims that General Motors’ (GM) durational limitations on implied warranties were "unreasonable" and "unconscionable" solely on the basis of the pleadings? 2. Is the implied warranty of merchantability applicable to claims for recovery of "lost resale value" for vehicles that did not experience mechanical difficulties?
Opinions:
Majority - Phillips, Circuit Judge
1. Yes, the district court erred by dismissing the claims challenging GM’s durational limitations on implied warranties as "unconscionable" solely on the basis of the pleadings. When a claim of unconscionability is raised, Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-302(2) mandates that parties be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence regarding the commercial setting, purpose, and effect of the contractual terms. Unconscionability claims often involve allegations of "overreaching" or an "absence of meaningful choice," which require an examination of factors like the parties' relative bargaining power, sophistication, knowledge, and whether there was an element of surprise or concealment. Evidence that GM knew of inherent defects in its diesel engines and failed to disclose them would strongly suggest overreaching and a substantial disparity in bargaining power, making the buyers' acceptance of warranty limitations potentially not "knowing" or "voluntary." The court distinguished between "reasonableness" (an objective assessment of expected product life) and "conscionability" (a subjective assessment of bargaining fairness) as provided under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act § 2308, emphasizing that while objective reasonableness is relevant, the fundamental fairness of the bargaining process is also a critical consideration for unconscionability. 2. No, the implied warranty of merchantability does not encompass claims for "lost resale value" for vehicles that have operated without incident. The implied warranty of merchantability, as defined by UCC § 2-314(2)(c), guarantees that goods are "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." For automobiles, this means they must provide "safe, reliable transportation" and be "substantially free of defects." This warranty does not extend to consumer expectations that a product will retain its market value or protect against market fluctuations or reputational damage unrelated to the product's functional fitness. The court found no legal precedent supporting the proposition that a diminution in secondary market value, absent an actual defect affecting the product's ability to perform its ordinary function, constitutes a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Therefore, the district court was correct in dismissing claims based solely on "lost resale value" for non-defective cars.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the procedural standard for adjudicating unconscionability claims regarding warranty limitations, emphasizing that an evidentiary record beyond mere pleadings is typically necessary. By distinguishing between "reasonableness" and "conscionability" under the Magnuson-Moss Act and UCC, the court ensures that the fairness of the bargaining process, including potential concealment of defects, is adequately scrutinized. Simultaneously, the ruling narrowly defines the scope of the implied warranty of merchantability, explicitly excluding claims for lost resale value in the absence of actual product defects impacting fitness for ordinary purpose. This bifurcation provides a check against premature dismissal of consumer protection claims while insulating manufacturers from liability for market forces unrelated to a product's functional quality.
