Court Opinion

ID: 9584243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:45:51.607227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:15.273667
License: Public Domain

Pannell, Judge.
Under the undisputed facts shown on motion for summary judgment, this case is controlled adversely to the appellee by the decisions in Holbrook v. Capital Auto. Co., 111 Ga. App. 601 (142 SE2d 288); Brown v. Ragsdale Motor Co., 65 Ga. App. 727, 731 (16 SE2d 176); Butts v. Groover, 66 Ga. App. 20 (16 SE2d 894). The purchase order, signed by appellee, after the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation as to mileage was made, reads in part as follows: "Buyer acknowledges he has read and received a printed copy of this order comprising the entire agreement affecting this purchase. . . No warranties, expressed or implied, are made by the dealer with respect to used motor vehicles or motor vehicle chassis furnished hereunder except as may be expressed in writing by the dealer for such motor vehicle or motor vehicle chassis, which warranty, so expressed in writing, is incorporated herein and made a part hereof. . . In case the vehicle covered by this order is a used vehicle, no warranty or representation is made as to the extent vehicle has been used, regardless of the mileage shown on the speedometer of said used vehicle.”
Accordingly, the denial of the summary judgment for the defendant appellant must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Hall, P. J., Eberhardt, Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur. Bell, C. J., Jordan, P. J., Deen and Evans, JJ., dissent.