Background
Nathan Gomm purchased a used 2020 Hyundai Elantra from Kings Motors Group, LLC (“KMG”) for $11,500 on April 19, 2024. Almost immediately, Gomm discovered multiple defects: a rear door that would not open from the inside, a broken backseat seatbelt, a missing windshield wiper, non-functioning blinker lights, a missing front panel, and other issues. The estimated repair cost was approximately $9,500. Gomm signed documents acknowledging the purchase was “as-is.”
Gomm filed a petition in small claims court alleging KMG violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”). At trial, Gomm testified that KMG salesperson Mohammad Qasem told him the vehicle had a “clean Carfax” and that KMG “has a due diligence process” and “thoroughly inspect[s] every vehicle.” Qasem testified that he told Gomm the vehicle was sold as-is and encouraged him to have it inspected by his own mechanic. The magistrate found in favor of Gomm and awarded $6,000 in damages. KMG appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District reversed. The court found that Gomm failed to establish that KMG committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the CSPA. The court analyzed the specific representations Gomm attributed to Qasem and found they were either not actionable misrepresentations or were contradicted by the evidence. The “clean Carfax” statement was not a misrepresentation because Gomm admitted he independently reviewed the Carfax before purchasing the vehicle. The statement about KMG’s “due diligence process” was a general marketing claim rather than a specific representation about the vehicle’s condition.
Critically, the court emphasized that Gomm signed an as-is agreement and was encouraged to have the vehicle independently inspected — an opportunity he declined. Under Ohio law, an as-is purchase shifts the risk of defects to the buyer, and the CSPA does not create a warranty where the parties have expressly disclaimed one. The court concluded that the small claims court’s judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- An as-is clause in a used vehicle sale shifts the risk of defects to the buyer and limits CSPA liability unless the seller made affirmative, specific misrepresentations about the vehicle’s condition.
- General marketing statements about a dealer’s inspection process are not actionable misrepresentations under the CSPA absent specific false statements about a particular vehicle.
- A buyer who independently verifies a Carfax report cannot later claim the seller’s reference to a “clean Carfax” was a deceptive practice.
Why It Matters
This decision is essential reading for Ohio consumer protection and automotive law practitioners. It clarifies the limits of CSPA liability in as-is used vehicle sales, establishing that general statements about a dealer’s inspection practices do not override an express as-is disclaimer. For buyers’ counsel, the opinion underscores the importance of documenting specific false statements about a vehicle’s condition — rather than relying on generalized claims — to sustain a CSPA action. For dealers, the decision reinforces the protective value of as-is agreements combined with clear encouragement that buyers obtain independent inspections.