DENIED: October 5, 2012 
CBCA 2870 
AMIN FARNAM, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 
Respondent. 
Amin Chaim Farnam, pro se, Roslyn Heights, NY. 
Ashley M. Bender, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
of the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges POLLACK , GOODMAN , and ZISCHKAU . 
GOODMAN , Board Judge. 
Appellant filed this appeal from the contracting officer’s decision denying his claim 
for costs incurred in repairing a vehicle purchased at an agency auction. Respondent has 
moved for summary relief.  We directed appellant to respond to the motion by August 31, 
2012, and appellant acknowledged receipt of our order. Nevertheless, appellant has not 
responded to respondent’s motion. As we find no material facts in dispute, and that 
appellant is not entitled to relief as a matter of law, we grant respondent’s motion and deny 
the appeal. 

 
    
      
         
   
        
   
      
       
       
        
   
    
         
       
      
      
      
        
        
    
    
     
     
2 CBCA 2870 
Background 
On April 24, 2012, appellant purchased a car at auction from respondent’s contractor 
VSE Corporation (VSE). The vehicle was sold pursuant to terms and conditions that 
specifically state that the property is being sold “AS IS, WHERE IS,” and “WITH ALL 
FAULTS.” 
In addition, the terms state: “The Government warrants to the original Purchaser that 
the property listed in the sales catalog for bids will conform to its description. The 
Government does not warrant the condition, quality, or merchantability of the property or 
its fitness for any use or purpose.” 
The terms also provide appellant with an opportunity to inspect the property: “A 
bidder is invited, urged, and cautioned to inspect the property prior to submitting a bid. The 
failure to inspect property shall not constitute cause for cancellation of sale.” 
The vehicle description included, among other information, the make, model, year, 
color, and interior of the car and included the VIN number and mileage. The description 
also stated that the known defects included: “Torn Lower Engine Splash, Curb Rash on 
Bumpers, Hood Release Inoperable, Broken Interior Panels, Check Engine Light 
Illuminated.”  
After appellant purchased the vehicle, he claims that he paid approximately $2500 
to repair the problem indicated by the illuminated check engine light, which had been noted 
as a known defect, and repair the windows and convertible top “to get them to working 
condition.” On June 11, 2012, appellant requested from the contracting officer a refund of 
the costs of repair.  On June 14, 2012, the contracting officer denied appellant's claim. 
Discussion 
Summary relief is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue as to any material 
fact (a fact that may affect the outcome of the litigation) and the moving party is entitled to 
relief as a matter of law. Any doubt on whether summary relief is appropriate is to be 
resolved against the moving party. The moving party shoulders the burden of proving that 
no genuine issue of material fact exists. Sullivan v. General Services Administration, CBCA 
936, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,820. 
In this case, respondent has met its burden. The vehicle was sold “as is.” The only 
warranty contained in the general sales terms and conditions was that the vehicle would be 
properly described. The fact that the vehicle was accurately described by year, make, model, 

 
      
      
   
  
       
__________________________ 
  
 
 
    
  
3 CBCA 2870 
and VIN number satisfies the warranty of description. Ibarra v. Department of Homeland 
Security, CBCA 1986, 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,573. 
The fact that appellant had to pay for repairs to fix problems that were either 
specified, such as the check engine light, or were not, does not obligate respondent to 
reimburse appellant for these repairs. Spicer v. General Services Administration , CBCA 
1532, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,195 (purchaser could not be refunded or reimbursed for repairs to 
vehicle sold “as is”). 
Decision 
The appeal is DENIED. 
ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
________________________________ ___________________________ 
HOWARD A. POLLACK JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU 
Board Judge Board Judge