Opinion ID: 1591280
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment as to the holmans' claims under the consumer protection act.

Text: ¶ 16. The Holmans amended their complaint with the court's permission to allege a violation of the Consumer Protection Act prior to the court granting summary judgment in favor of Howard Wilson. The circuit court concluded that the addition of this claim would not affect its judgment. A discussion of the effect the summary judgment had on the Holmans' claim under the Consumer Protection Act does not appear in the Court of Appeals opinion, yet the Holmans pursued this claim in their briefs and petition for writ of certiorari. The act allows the Holmans to pursue this claim on their own behalf, so we address it below. Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-15(1) (Rev.2000). ¶ 17. At the hearing, the Holmans argued that the Consumer Protection Act permitted them to recover damages because Howard Wilson sold them a car it represented as new when it was, in fact, used or reconditioned. See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5(2)(f) (Rev.2000). Howard Wilson denied it sold them the demonstrator car as a new car. These arguments, on their face, suggest a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether Howard Wilson sold the Holmans the demonstrator Jeep as a new vehicle. We find factual support for the Holmans' argument in the record. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate. ¶ 18. In responding to the motion for summary judgment, the Holmans offered their affidavit which provided, in pertinent part: After looking around for a while we decided upon a new 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee. We talked to the sales representative who advised that the Jeep was new as reflected on the title and other applicable sales documents. When the sales representative stated the Jeep was new, it carried with it the generally accepted connotation that it had never sustained any damages. Based upon this and other representations of good quality, we decided to, and did, purchase the vehicle on July 31, 2002. As noted above, the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price on the manufacturer's vehicle invoice matched the price of the vehicle listed on the purchase contract the Holmans signed. On the face of the Howard Wilson purchase contract there is one area where one of three boxes can be marked to identify the vehicle being sold as new vehicle, demo, or used vehicle. The area immediately adjacent to the new vehicle box was marked on the Holmans' purchase contract. These facts stand in opposition to Howard Wilson's claim it did not sell the Holmans the demonstrator Jeep as new. Since there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Howard Wilson sold the demonstrator Jeep to the Holmans as a new car, the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to Howard Wilson. Its judgment is therefore reversed, and this matter remanded for further proceedings. ¶ 19. We are urged by the Motor Vehicle Commission and the Mississippi Automobile Dealers Association to find that the Consumer Protection Act and Regulation One do not conflict, as alleged by the Holmans. We agree that the Consumer Protection Act does not conflict with Regulation One. The language of Regulation One specifically states that it does not waive or alter any requirements or obligations created by state law. The purpose of both the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission Act and the Consumer Protection Act is to protect the citizens of Mississippi from deceptive and unfair trade practices. Miss.Code Ann. §§ 63-17-53 (Rev.2004), 75-24-5 (Rev.2002). Both the Motor Vehicle Commission Act and the Consumer Protection Act prohibit the sale of a used or reconditioned car as a new car. Miss.Code Ann. §§ 63-17-73(1)(b)(2) (Rev.2004), 75-24-5(2)(f) (Rev. 2002). While the regulation identifies any Vehicle within its coverage, we have noted above that the purpose of the regulation is to cover corrected damage done to new vehicles while in transit. Under the circumstances, we perceive no conflict between the regulation and the Consumer Protection Act.