White v. Smedley's Chevrolet
2016 Ohio 968
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Saylor White bought a used 2008 Chevrolet Impala from Smedley’s on June 25, 2012, and purchased a third‑party GWC extended service contract for $1,500; financing documents itemized price, taxes, fees, and trade‑in allowance.
- The sale papers included a Buyer’s Guide and multiple forms stating the car was sold “AS IS — NO WARRANTY”; White signed the documents but repeatedly testified he did not read them before signing.
- White complained of multiple post‑purchase defects, returned the car for repairs, received some fixes (pinstripe, temporary roof repair), contested coverage under the GWC contract, and later sold the car to his father in January 2014.
- Procedurally, Smedley’s obtained deemed admissions that White bought the vehicle "as‑is," moved for summary judgment, and relied on White’s deposition and the written sales/finance documents; White opposed with various exhibits and a sworn verification.
- The Vandalia Municipal Court granted summary judgment for Smedley’s; the Second District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding White had no genuine issue of material fact on price shifting, unscrupulous sales tactics, breach of contract, or OCSPA violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price shifting — oral price vs. written contract | White: oral agreement to lower price/trade‑in value; dealership reneged | Smedley’s: written purchase agreement and finance disclosure reflect final price; White signed and had opportunity to read | Court: No genuine dispute; signatory bound by documents he chose not to read; summary judgment for Smedley’s |
| Unscrupulous sales tactics / misrepresentation | White: high‑pressure sales, misrepresented car condition (a "lemon"), induced warranty purchase | Smedley’s: negotiations were ordinary; White test‑drove car twice, was aware of some defects, could have declined warranty | Court: No evidence of unconscionable or deceptive acts; inducement/pressure insufficient; summary judgment for Smedley’s |
| Promised repairs / "We Owe" obligations | White: dealership agreed to repair several items but failed to perform | Smedley’s: Delivery Report/We Owe listed repairs and required appointment within 30 days; some repairs were done; no proof White timely requested all repairs | Court: White produced no evidence he requested repairs within the 30‑day window; no breach established |
| Breach of contract / OCSPA violation | White: contract breaches and unfair/deceptive practices under OCSPA | Smedley’s: no contractual breach; disclosures and "as‑is" disclaimers negate warranty/OCSPA claims | Court: No evidence that Smedley’s misled or manipulated transaction; summary judgment for Smedley’s |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment standard and Civ.R. 56 framework)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (movant's initial burden in summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (nonmoving party's burden to present specific facts)
- Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power Engineering Group, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 429 (party presumed bound by documents it willingly signed)
- W.K. v. Farrell, 167 Ohio App.3d 14 (signer responsible for failing to read documents; fraud‑in‑the‑factum discussion)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 (OCSPA definitions of deceptive and unconscionable practices)