Court Opinion

ID: 9847186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:55:21.889081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:02.751207
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for rehearing, appellant for the first time presents the argument that because the invoice issued pursuant to appellant’s sale of the car to the Bank expressly disclaimed all dealer warranties, it has no warranty obligation to appellee. However, pretermitting the question of whether that document, which was attached as an exhibit to the pretrial order, was properly before the trial court on summary judgment, and whether its disclaimer indeed resolves the issue of a dealer warranty, the invoice, which apparently was executed as part of a simultaneous transaction among appellant, appellee, and the Bank, states that “[a]ny warranties on the [car] are those made by the manufacturer.” The complaint and answer filed below indicate that the manufacturer did provide a warranty on the vehicle, and the service thereunder was provided by appellant. Appellee’s contention in the pretrial order is that this warranty service was not performed properly, while appellant contends that it has met its obligations under the manufacturer’s warranty and that the warranty has now expired. As neither party offered any testimony on this issue, we conclude that the question of appellant’s performance of its obligations to service the manufacturer’s warranty cannot be resolved on this motion for summary judgment.
*634Decided February 12, 1990
Rehearing denied February 23, 1990
Moore & Rogers, William R. Johnson, J. Brian O’Neil, for appellant.
Gaines C. Granade, for appellee.