Raysoni v. Payless Auto Deals, LLC, 296 Ga. 156

Background

Raysoni bought a 2008 Honda Odyssey from Payless after a salesperson verbally represented the vehicle was "clean" and "undamaged."
Payless also provided a Carfax report showing no damage; Raysoni says he relied on both the salesperson and the Carfax.
About two months later Raysoni learned the van had been in a wreck and sustained frame damage; Payless refused to rescind the sale.
Raysoni sued for common-law fraud and FBPA consumer fraud, alleging Payless knowingly misrepresented the vehicle’s condition and supplied an inaccurate Carfax.
Payless moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing contractual provisions (disclaimers, partial merger language, auction disclosure, and mechanic-inspection advice) made any reliance unreasonable as a matter of law.
The trial court and Court of Appeals granted Payless’s motion; the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, finding reasonable-reliance issues were generally for a jury on these pleadings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff reasonably relied on precontractual representations (oral and the Carfax)	Raysoni contends he reasonably relied on salesperson assurances and the Carfax he was given	Payless contends contract language (disclaimers, "no salesman verbal representation" clause, auction notice, inspection recommendation) made reliance unreasonable as a matter of law	Reasonable reliance is ordinarily a jury question; on these pleadings, the contract language did not conclusively render reliance unreasonable
Whether a partial merger/disclaimer clause bars fraud/FBPA claims as a matter of law	Raysoni says he relied on a written Carfax in addition to oral statements, so a clause limited to verbal representations does not negate his reliance	Payless says the clause and disclaimers negate reliance and justify judgment on the pleadings	Court: Partial merger limited to verbal representations does not, on the pleadings, preclude reliance on a written Carfax report
Whether warranty/disclaimer language ("AS IS NO WARRANTY") precludes reliance	Raysoni argues disclaimers are equivocal and contract even includes a limited warranty elsewhere, undermining absoluteness	Payless says disclaimers are clear and bar reliance	Court: Disclaimers are not unambiguous and absolute on the face of the contract; cannot decide as a matter of law at pleading stage
Whether auction disclosure and inspection-advice negate causation/reliance as matter of law	Raysoni contends these fine-print statements do not directly contradict his specific reliance on Carfax and salesperson	Payless contends auction notice and recommendation to get a mechanic made reliance unreasonable	Court: Those provisions do not clearly and squarely contradict the alleged representations; factual questions remain for the finder of fact

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Techdata Corp., 238 Ga. 622 (establishes that reasonable reliance is required for fraud)
Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 281 Ga. 137 (FBPA consumer fraud requires causation shown by reasonable reliance)
Akins v. Couch, 271 Ga. 276 (reasonable reliance usually a jury question)
Novare Group v. Sarif, 290 Ga. 186 (discusses when contract terms may make reliance unreasonable as a matter of law)
First Data POS, Inc. v. Willis, 273 Ga. 792 (comprehensive merger clause can render reliance on precontractual representations unreasonable)
Raysoni v. Payless Auto Deals, LLC, 323 Ga. App. 583 (appellate decision below)