Tanner Mickelsen v. Broadway Ford, Inc.
280 P.3d 176
Idaho2012Background
- In August 2007, Mickelsen leased a Ford F-350 from Broadway Ford; truck had aftermarket lift and tires, but was sold as new with factory warranty.
- Mickelsen, residing in Washington, had repairs by Discovery Ford under warranty; later handling issues arose due to lift-related nonconformity.
- Warranty denial was communicated to Mickelsen; Broadway Ford proposed returning the truck to Idaho Falls; Mickelsen did not return it and stopped lease payments.
- Mickelsen surrendered the vehicle to U.S. Bank in September 2009; he filed suit in October 2009 alleging fraud in the inducement and seeking rescission or mutual mistake.
- District court granted Broadway Ford summary judgment in August 2010, ruling the misrepresentation not material and no fundamental mutual mistake.
- Mickelsen appealed; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding UCC-based analysis and revocation of acceptance did not support rescission; no attorney fees awarded on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud in inducement under the UCC | Mickelsen contends misrepresentation affected the lease; seeks rescission. | UCC governs; misrepresentation not material; statute displaces common law fraud. | UCC governs; no material misrepresentation as to nonconformity. |
| Substantial impairment under revocation of acceptance | Nonconformity (aftermarket parts) substantially impair value due to warranty issues. | No substantial impairment; no breach or warranty breach shown; aftermarket parts not Ford-covered. | No substantial impairment; revocation not warranted. |
| Mutual mistake and rescission | If no knowing misrepresentation, there was mutual misunderstanding about warranties and rescission should be available. | No mutual mistake; any mistake was unilateral and not fundamental to the contract. | No mutual mistake; rescission not allowed. |
| Affidavits/depositions struck and appellate review | District court abused discretion by striking Mickelsen's affidavits/depositions. | Affidavits/depositions were inadmissible hearsay; no error in striking. | Issue waived for appeal; not addressed on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Latham Motors, Inc., 128 Idaho 356 (Idaho 1996) (revocation of acceptance involves substantial impairment test)
- McCann v. McCann, 152 Idaho 809 (Idaho 2012) (UCC preempts common law fraud in leases)
- Griffith v. Latham Motors, Inc., 128 Idaho 361 (Idaho 1996) (test for substantial impairment requires two-step purpose-and-use analysis)
- Peckham v. Larsen Chevrolet-Buick-Oldsmobile, Inc., 99 Idaho 675 (Idaho 1978) (rescission and revocation concepts under UCC)
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982) (breach of warranty as a form of nonconformity for revocation)
- Hayes v. Union Pacific R. Co., 143 Idaho 204 (Idaho 2006) (summary judgment standard and inferences in favor of non-movant)
- Iron Eagle Dev., LLC v. Quality Design Systems, Inc., 138 Idaho 487 (Idaho 2003) (equitable claims and availability of legal remedies)
- Primary Health Network, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Admin., 137 Idaho 663 (Idaho 2002) (mutual mistake and administrative remedies)
- KEB Enterprises, L.P. v. Smedley, 140 Idaho 746 (Idaho 2004) (appeal-raising issues for first time)
- Mackowiak v. Harris, 146 Idaho 864 (Idaho 2009) (occurrence of procedural issues in appeals)