Leach v. Bishop Bros. Auto Auction, Inc., 78-1773
| Decision Date | 14 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1773,78-1773 |
| Citation | 624 F.2d 34 |
| Parties | Jerry Cecil LEACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BISHOP BROTHERS AUTO AUCTION, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Gale W. Mull, Thomas E. Maddox, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.
Noah J. Stone, Atlanta, Ga., for Bishop Bros. Auto Auction, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before GOLDBERG, CHARLES CLARK and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges:
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant-appellee, Bishop Brothers Auto Auction, Inc., holding that "(t)he mileage was unknown to the defendant and, under the semantic double speak of 15 U.S.C. § 1988, Bishop Brothers could not disclose the mileage as 'unknown.' " Believing that Congress did not intend for an automobile seller to misrepresent the mileage to a buyer if the seller knew, or had reason to know, that the mileage could be that registered on the odometer plus the 100,000 at the time of his disclosure, we reverse. The trial court did not have before it our decision in Nieto v. Pence, 578 F.2d 640 (5th Cir. 1978), where we held that constructive knowledge that the odometer reading is less than the actual mileage is sufficient to make a transferor of an automobile civilly liable for failure to disclose that a vehicle's actual mileage is unknown. See also Bolton v. Tyler Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 587 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1979).
The affidavits in this case reflect that in August 1976 plaintiff purchased a 1968 Mercedes Benz automobile from the defendant Bishop and was furnished an odometer statement which showed the mileage as 34,194. Ten days previously Bishop had purchased the automobile at which time he was advised by the seller in that transaction that "although the previous owner had executed an odometer disclosure form indicating that the odometer reading was 33,796 miles, it was my understanding that the car more than likely had 134,177 actual miles." Thus, it would appear that the defendant Bishop prior to selling the automobile to the plaintiff was put on constructive notice that the vehicle in question, which had an age of eight years, probably had an incorrect odometer reading. Under such circumstances and under our holding in Nieto, we hold that the defendant dealer had an obligation to indicate to the purchaser that the odometer reading was unknown rather than filling in the form as it did. Since ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Riverside Lincoln Mercury-Sales, MERCURY-SALES
...1976), 426 F.Supp. 248, 258), or have predicated liability on a theory of constructive knowledge (Leach v. Bishop Brothers Auto Auction, Inc. (5th Cir.1980), 624 F.2d 34, 35 (transferor told dealer that eight-year-old car had 134,177 miles rather than 33,796 miles as certified by prior owne......
-
Haynes v. Manning
...1085 (defendant received disclosure statement from previous owner indicating odometer could not be relied on); Leach v. Bishop Bros. Auto Auction, 624 F.2d 34, 35 (5th Cir.1980) (defendant put on notice of possible The court instructed the jury that for plaintiffs to prevail on the federal ......
-
Starobin v. Randolph Computer Corp.
...15, 18-19 (M.D. Tenn.1983); Leach v. Bishop Bros. Auto Auction, Inc., 441 F.Supp. 98, 100 (N.D. Ga.1977), rev'd on other grounds, 624 F.2d 34 (5th Cir.1980). Here the claims are specifically for attorneys' fees, which are actual expenses that RCC and BanCal claim are covered by the indemnit......
-
Suits v. Little Motor Co., 79-3488
...knowledge that actual mileage exceeds recorded mileage, Nieto v. Pence, 578 F.2d 640 (5th Cir. 1978); 5 Leach v. Bishop Brothers Auto Auction, 624 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1980). Appellee here urges that the latter case, holding that a transferor who has received notice that the car's odometer has......