Ventura v. Ford Motor Corp.
180 N.J. Super. 45, 433 A.2d 801 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a supplier who makes a written warranty to a consumer regarding a product may not disclaim or modify the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. A dealer's written agreement to perform the service obligations of a manufacturer's warranty constitutes a written warranty by the dealer, thereby invalidating any attempted disclaimer of implied warranties.
Facts:
- Giuseppe Ventura purchased a new 1978 Mercury Marquis Brougham from Marino Auto Sales, Inc., an authorized Ford dealer.
- Immediately after taking delivery, Ventura experienced persistent engine hesitation and stalling problems with the vehicle.
- Despite numerous attempts by Marino Auto to repair the car, the defects were never corrected.
- A Ford service manager inspected the vehicle, recommended a repair, and told Ventura he would "have to live with this one."
- The purchase contract signed by Ventura contained a conspicuous clause where Marino Auto expressly disclaimed all warranties, including the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness.
- The same contract also contained a provision stating that Marino Auto agreed to "promptly perform and fulfill all terms and conditions of the owner service policy," which encompassed Ford's limited warranty.
Procedural Posture:
- Giuseppe Ventura sued Marino Auto Sales, Inc. (dealer) and Ford Motor Corporation (manufacturer) in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, the state's trial court.
- Marino Auto filed a cross-claim against Ford seeking indemnification.
- The trial court severed the claims and first held a nonjury trial on Ventura's claim against Ford.
- The court found that Ford had breached its express warranty but that Ventura's remedy was rescission against Marino Auto.
- A trial was then held on the remaining claims, resulting in a final judgment granting rescission for Ventura against Marino Auto, ordering Ford to indemnify Marino Auto, and awarding attorney's fees to Ventura against Ford.
- Ford, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, can a car dealer who provides a manufacturer's written warranty and agrees to perform service under it also validly disclaim the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness?
Opinions:
Majority - Botter, P.J.A.D.
No. Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a dealer that gives a consumer a written warranty, which includes an undertaking to perform the manufacturer's warranty service, may not disclaim the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. The Act's purpose is to make warranties on consumer products more enforceable. Section 2308(a) of the Act explicitly prohibits a supplier from disclaiming any implied warranty if that supplier makes any written warranty to the consumer. The court found that Marino Auto's contractual agreement to 'promptly perform and fulfill all terms and conditions of the owner service policy' constituted a 'written warranty' under the Act's definition in § 2301(6)(B), as it was a written undertaking to take 'remedial action' for the product. Because Marino Auto provided this written warranty, its attempted disclaimer of implied warranties was rendered ineffective by the Act. Consequently, Marino Auto was bound by the implied warranty of merchantability under state law, and its breach entitled Ventura to revoke his acceptance of the vehicle and receive a refund.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens consumer rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by clarifying that a dealer's adoption of a manufacturer's service obligations constitutes a 'written warranty.' This holding prevents retailers from simultaneously benefiting from offering a manufacturer's warranty while contractually disclaiming all underlying responsibility for a product's basic functionality. The case establishes a precedent that makes it more difficult for dealers to insulate themselves from liability for defective goods, ensuring that consumers have a direct remedy against the immediate seller for breaches of implied warranties, which the Act preserves.
