Court Opinion

ID: 9792846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:37:59.764568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:33.352787
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Justice
(concurring):
I concur with the following comment: Defendants contend that they should not be held liable for innocently delivering a void title because the only provision of the Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Act dealing with a stolen vehicle is Section 41-3-23(3), and that there is no violation under this sub-section unless the dealer knowingly sells a stolen vehicle. That sub-section provides:
(a) It shall be unlawful and a violation of this act for the holder of any license issued under the terms and provisions hereof:

(3) to knowingly purchase, sell, transport, dismantle or otherwise acquire, dispose of or handle a stolen motor vehicle.
It is true that under Section 41-3-18 a right of action is given only to persons suffering loss or damage by reason of fraud, fraudulent representation or “violation of any of the provisions of this act, ...” by a licensed dealer. The “act” refers to the Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Act enacted in 1949 as Chapter 67, Laws of Utah 1949, and now embodied in Sections 41-3-6 to 41-3-27, inclusive, U.C.A.1953, as amended. However, defendants’ argument overlooks the fact that 41-3-23(4) provides that it shall also be a violation of the “act”:
(4) To violate any law of the State of Utah now existing or hereafter enacted respecting commerce in motor vehicles

Both Sections 41-3-2 and 41-1-63 set out in full in the main opinion deal with “commerce in motor vehicles.” Defendant did not comply with them. Despite their plea that they should not be held to be insurers of the title, Section 41-1-63 compels that result by providing that the owner shall endorse an assignment and warranty of title upon the certificate of title.
STEWART, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of HOWE, J.