Opinion ID: 1676987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Misrepresentation Count

Text: In Count IX of their complaint as amended, the Rhodeses allege that General Motors represented to them that the car they were purchasing was new and was without defects. The Rhodeses do not allege that any specific representation to this effect was made to them. Rather, they claim that because General Motors supplied them with a New Car Limited Warranty, General Motors was warranting that the car was new and was without defects. The Rhodeses do not claim that the car had been previously owned, wrecked, or damaged or that it had any patent defects. Rather, they claim that the fact that the car had to be repaired three times after purchase is evidence that the car was not new and that it was defective. In Tittle v. Steel City Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc., 544 So.2d 883 (Ala.1989), we considered the application of a warranty that provided: This warranty covers any repairs and needed adjustments to correct defects in material or workmanship. 544 So.2d at 891. In that case, we concluded that rather than guaranteeing the car to be free of defects, the warranty actually anticipated that defects would arise and provided for remedying such defects. Id. Similarly, we conclude that the language in this warranty cannot be construed as a representation that the car was and would remain free of defects. [5] Because the Rhodeses failed to present substantial evidence to support their claim that General Motors falsely represented that the car they purchased was new and without defects, we conclude that the trial court properly entered the summary judgment as to the misrepresentation count against General Motors. Accordingly, with regard to that count the summary judgment is affirmed. [6]