Hubbard v. Aase Sales, LLC
2018 Ohio 2363
Oh. Ct. App. 5th Dist. Delawar...2018Background
- Hubbard, a classic-car dealer/collector in Arizona, purchased a 1963 Porsche from AASE Sales (Ohio) after relying on an online ad stating the car was "matching numbers" and "#1 restored." Hubbard arranged payment and transport; title was placed in Hubbard Auto Sales.
- After delivery, Hubbard paid for repairs/transport and later obtained a Porsche Certificate of Authenticity that showed the vehicle’s numbers did not match; he then notified AASE Sales and exchanged emails with its president, Ron Thomas.
- Hubbard sued for rescission, breach of express warranty, violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), and fraud/negligent misrepresentation; AASE counterclaimed for abuse of process.
- After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Hubbard, granting rescission, awarding $5,084.55 in out‑of‑pocket damages, and rejecting AASE’s counterclaim; AASE appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Hubbard had standing, the abuse‑of‑process counterclaim failed, express warranties existed and were breached, the sale qualified as a consumer transaction under the CSPA, and the rescission award (including incidental expenses) was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Hubbard's Argument | AASE's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Hubbard intended some personal ownership/use and incurred personal expenses; thus he was a consumer/person injured. | Vehicle was purchased for business (dealer) use and titled to Hubbard Auto Sales, so Hubbard lacked personal standing. | Hubbard had standing: objective manifestations showed personal intent and out‑of‑pocket injury. |
| Abuse of process counterclaim | N/A (Hubbard sought directed verdict) | AASE argued Hubbard never paid and brought suit to extort; argued facts rebut Hubbard’s claims. | Counterclaim failed: no evidence of ulterior motive or improper use of process; directed verdict for Hubbard appropriate. |
| Breach of express warranty / rescission | AASE’s ad and seller affirmations ("matching numbers," "#1 restored") formed express warranties; vehicle failed to conform; Hubbard timely notified seller; rescission appropriate and value reduced. | Advertiser's descriptive language was non‑warranting puffery; engine was original per seller’s sources. | Court found express warranties existed, were breached, notice was given, value was diminished (~30%), and rescission was proper. |
| CSPA applicability and remedy | Purchase was for primarily personal/collectible use; misrepresentations violated CSPA (deceptive practice). | Transaction was for business (dealer) purposes; CSPA does not apply. | Sale was a consumer transaction at the time of contracting (objective statements showed personal intent); CSPA violation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury fairly traceable to defendant and redressable)
- State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union No. 436 v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 132 Ohio St.3d 47 (explaining standing as entitlement to have court decide merits)
- Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., 68 Ohio St.3d 294 (elements of abuse of process)
- Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club, 75 Ohio St.3d 264 (abuse of process requires improper use to obtain collateral advantage)
- Clermont Environmental Reclamation Co. v. Hancock, 16 Ohio App.3d 9 (abuse of process requires ulterior motive and further improper act)
- Mid‑America Acceptance Co. v. Lightle, 63 Ohio App.3d 590 (rescission aims to restore status quo and reimburse out‑of‑pocket expenses)