In a recent unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals decision, the Court significantly limited the ability of a plaintiff to assert a misrepresentation claim against an automobile dealership. In Seltz v Ford Motor Co, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals (Docket NO. 341700, issued Nov 5, 2019), the Court observed that, unless an allegation of misrepresentation is based on the terms of the contract–usually a purchase agreement–there can be no claim for misrepresentation. This issue often arises when an automobile purchaser claims misrepresentation based on the oral statements of a salesperson. But where such a contract to purchase an automobile contains a valid merger clause, there can be no claim for misrepresentation unless the misrepresentation is based on the terms or contents of the contract itself. The merger caluse in Seltz stated: “I understand that the front and back of this order comprises the entire agreement . . . .” The inclusion of such a clause in the contract precluded a misrepresentation claim based on pre-contractual, oral statements.
Anthony Caffrey and Thomas Cardelli report a major victory in Faran v Lapan, 2023 U.S.…
On trial for his 163rd jury trial, Thomas Cardelli successfully defended cable giant Frontier Communications…
Introduction - A Clean Slate for Past Convictions Effective April 11, 2021, the Michigan legislature…
No reasonable person would contest that 2020 was a year full of changes from the…
As Michigan emerges from lockdown, we are beginning to have increased court rulings on pending…
The intellectual property attorneys at Cardelli Lanfear recently had an article published regarding the emerging…