237 Cal. App. 4th 402
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Justin Leber and Katherine Neumann purchased a Chevrolet Silverado from DKD of Davis; the truck had a transmission defect alleged to be covered by a transferable General Motors manufacturer warranty.
- At sale, DKD presented a Buyers Guide stating the vehicle was "used" and sold "AS IS - NO WARRANTY," warning buyer would pay all repair costs.
- Leber sued DKD (and GM, not a party on appeal) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, claiming implied warranties and/or coverage by the manufacturer warranty made DKD liable.
- DKD moved for summary judgment, producing evidence of the Buyers Guide and that it gave no express warranty; Leber offered evidence about GM’s transferable warranty and repair attempts, but some evidence was excluded by the trial court (not challenged on appeal).
- The trial court granted DKD summary judgment; Leber appealed. The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding no triable issue because the Act’s implied-warranty protections apply only to "new" consumer goods (with limited statutory exceptions) and DKD did not give an express warranty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether implied warranties under Song‑Beverly apply to this sale | Leber: vehicle effectively "new" for Act purposes because GM warranty remained; thus implied warranties apply | DKD: vehicle was used and sold "as is"; DKD gave no express warranty, so no implied warranties under the Act | Court: Held no implied warranties; Act applies to "new" goods except limited exceptions; DKD sold used "as is" so Act’s implied-warranty provisions do not apply |
| Whether a transferable manufacturer warranty on a used car makes the seller liable under the Act | Leber: presence of an unexpired GM warranty meant the sale was one "in which an express warranty is given" under §1795.5, bringing used-vehicle sale within Act | DKD: even if GM warranty existed, DKD itself made no express warranty and explicitly disclaimed warranties in the Buyers Guide | Court: Held Jensen (defining "new motor vehicle" for manufacturer-liability statute) is inapplicable; section 1795.5 applies only where a distributor/retailer gives an express warranty; GM’s warranty does not convert DKD’s sale into a sale "in which an express warranty is given" by DKD |
| Whether the Buyers Guide disclaimer was ineffective because it failed to mention the continuing GM warranty | Leber: disclaimer was misleading and thus not the required conspicuous writing under §1792.4 | DKD: Buyers Guide (federal and state rules) shows "as is" disclaimer and federal regs allow, but do not require, noting manufacturer’s warranty | Court: Held §1792.4 governs goods "governed by this chapter" (i.e., new goods); because Leber did not show vehicle qualified as "consumer goods" under the Act, §1792.4 did not apply to invalidate the disclaimer in this context |
| Whether ambiguity in the Act requires a broad remedial construction in favor of Leber | Leber: Act is remedial and should be construed broadly to favor consumer protection | DKD: statutory text controls; no ambiguity here | Court: Held no ambiguity in statutory scheme; remedial-construction principle does not override clear statutory language |
Key Cases Cited
- Joyce v. Ford Motor Co., 198 Cal.App.4th 1478 (summarizing Song‑Beverly’s scope and obligations)
- Meddock v. County of Yolo, 220 Cal.App.4th 170 (standard of review for defense summary judgment)
- Salas v. Department of Transportation, 198 Cal.App.4th 1058 (treating excluded evidence as not part of summary‑judgment record)
- Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc., 35 Cal.App.4th 112 (definition of "new motor vehicle" for manufacturer‑liability provision—distinguished)
- Kwan v. Mercedes‑Benz of North America, Inc., 23 Cal.App.4th 174 (noting remedial construction of Song‑Beverly)
- Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 985 (respecting statutory text despite remedial purpose)
- Schweisinger v. Jones, 68 Cal.App.4th 1320 (interpretive canon: expressio unius est exclusio alterius)