Hall v. Certified Luxury Auto
1 CA-CV 20-0519
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2021Background
- Hall bought a used car from Certified Luxury Auto in Feb 2019 and signed a six‑page retail installment contract that included warranty and disclaimer language.
- Page one of the contract recited the Arizona statutory limited warranty: the vehicle is warranted for 15 days or 500 miles (whichever is earlier) except for disclosed defects. The language matched the statutory “conspicuous statement.”
- Page two disclaimed all other warranties and stated the vehicle was sold “as is,” but preserved the statutory 15‑day/500‑mile implied warranty “as described above.”
- The window sticker on the vehicle stated “AS IS – NO DEALER WARRANTY” and said the window form overrides contrary contract provisions. The contract also said the window form is part of the contract.
- Ten months after purchase Hall sued to void the sale, alleging the window sticker attempted to waive the implied warranty of merchantability in violation of A.R.S. § 44‑1267(B). The complaint did not allege Hall ever sought to invoke or that the dealer refused the 15‑day/500‑mile warranty. The superior court granted defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; Hall appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract/window sticker attempted to exclude or disclaim the statutory implied warranty of merchantability (A.R.S. § 44‑1267) | Hall: Window sticker and "as is" language attempted to waive the implied warranty, rendering the agreement voidable | Dealer: Contract expressly included the mandatory 15‑day/500‑mile warranty and only disclaimed warranties beyond that statutory minimum | Court: Contract’s plain terms preserved the statutory 15‑day/500‑mile warranty and only excluded warranties beyond it; no unlawful attempt to disclaim the implied warranty; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Hall’s complaint survived Rule 12(b)(6) because she alleged the dealer attempted to waive the implied warranty | Hall: Court must accept her allegation that the window sticker waived the warranty | Dealer: Complaint fails as a matter of law because contract language, read in context, contradicts that legal conclusion | Court: Legal conclusions and unreasonable inferences need not be accepted; well‑pleaded facts show the contract preserved the statutory warranty, so dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Rolnick, 210 Ariz. 321 (App. 2005) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Duff v. Lee, 250 Ariz. 135 (Ariz. 2020) (statutory and contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Terrell v. Torres, 248 Ariz. 47 (Ariz. 2020) (contract provisions interpreted in context and by plain meaning)
- Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc., 207 Ariz. 537 (App. 2004) (an "as is" sale excludes warranty after the statutory 15‑day/500‑mile period)
- Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz. 386 (App. 2005) (courts do not accept legal conclusions or unreasonable inferences as true on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)