Olah v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc.
946 N.E.2d 771
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Olahs bought a used 2004 Aveo from Ganley in October 2004 for $9,400; vehicle listed as used with 541 miles.
- The Olahs were attracted by a newspaper ad for a new Aveo at $7,777 and were steered to a vehicle across from the showroom with 541 miles and added options.
- They testified they believed the car was new, with mileage from test drives and dealer use, and that it would come with a full warranty.
- At trial the car had ~38,000 miles and there was no warranty claim; the Olahs sought rescission and damages, plus a class claim under the FTC’s Used Car Window Sticker Rule.
- The trial court awarded rescission, damages, and attorney fees; on appeal, the court reversed, finding parol-evidence barred extrinsic representations, and the cross-appeal on attorney fees was moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parol-evidence rule applicability to extrinsic representations | Olahs contend extrinsic misrepresentations are admissible | Ganley argues parol-evidence prohibition controls | Parol-evidence bars extrinsic representations conflicting with the written contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C., 122 Ohio St.3d 546 (2009-Ohio-3554) (parol evidence governs consumer-sales-practice claims; certain exceptions apply)
- Galmish v. Cicchini, 90 Ohio St.3d 22 (2000) (parol evidence cannot be used to replace the final written contract when integrated)
- Natl. Sur. Corp. v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri ex rel. Paul Mueller Co., 268 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1959) (quotation about parol evidence from a federal appellate decision)