Peabody v. P.J.'s Auto Village, Inc., 87-526

Decision Date27 October 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-526,87-526
Citation153 Vt. 55,569 A.2d 460
PartiesSheri Davis PEABODY v. P.J.'S AUTO VILLAGE, INC.
CourtVermont Supreme Court

Biggam & Fox, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellant.

Allan Bruce, Burlington, for defendant-appellee.

Before ALLEN, C.J., and PECK, GIBSON, DOOLEY and MORSE, JJ.

MORSE, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment, following a bench trial, in favor of defendant, P.J.'s Auto Village, Inc. She lost her suit for damages under Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act, 9 V.S.A. § 2453(a), resulting from P.J.'s sale to her of the front of a 1974 Saab welded to the back of a 1972 Saab, known in the trade as a "clipped" vehicle. The only issue is whether the trial court erred when it required plaintiff to prove actual damage. We reverse and remand.

I.

On February 20, 1979, P.J.'s sold plaintiff a used Saab for $2,895.00. Before P.J.'s received the Saab as a trade-in, someone created it by welding the front of a 1974 Saab to the back of a 1972 Saab. Although P.J.'s knew the vehicle was clipped, it did not disclose this to plaintiff; it represented the car as a 1974 model. P.J.'s disputes this fact on appeal. The trial court found, however: "The welding can readily be seen during routine maintenance when the car is on a lift. The dealer performed routine maintenance on the vehicle prior to the sale and was aware of its condition." (Emphasis added.) This finding is not clearly erroneous. The person who traded in the clipped automobile to P.J.'s approximately one month before it was sold to plaintiff testified that P.J.'s lost the title to the car and that when he went to P.J.'s to fill out the paperwork for a new title it was "indicated ... that they had found two vehicle identification numbers on the car and they were different from one another and that the car had obviously been repaired."

The court also found that P.J.'s sales policy--although not followed in this case--requires disclosure to "purchasers of the condition of the vehicle to be sold, including the fact that it has been clipped," and that such information is of the type that a used car purchaser would "reasonably expect from a dealer in a fair competitive market." Further, the court found that "[h]ad the buyer known of the [clipped] condition of the car at time of purchase, she would have purchased one without this repair work" and that "a reasonable consumer" would have "considerable reluctance to purchase a [clipped] vehicle." The court summed up by concluding that plaintiff had no actual problems with the car and "that the repair work resulted in a safe, reliable car at least equal to one not [clipped]." Plaintiff drove the car nearly one and one-half years before discovering through a routine maintenance check that the Saab was clipped.

II.

Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act makes it unlawful to employ "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce." 9 V.S.A. § 2453(a). It was enacted "to protect the public, and to encourage fair and honest competition." 9 V.S.A. § 2451. Despite what plaintiff proved to the trial court's satisfaction, it concluded that P.J.'s failure to disclose that the automobile was clipped did not constitute a "deceptive act" within the meaning of § 2453.

The elements of "a deceptive act or practice" are set forth in Poulin v. Ford Motor Co., 147 Vt. 120, 124-25, 513 A.2d 1168, 1171-72 (1986):

(1) there must be a representation, practice, or omission likely to mislead [the] consumer[ ];

(2) the consumer[ ] must be interpreting the message reasonably under the circumstances; and

(3) the misleading effects must be "material," that is, likely to affect [the] consumer[']s conduct or decision with regard to a product.

(quoting International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949, 1056 (1984)). Deception is measured by an objective standard focusing "on risk of consumer harm" in a particular case. International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. at 1056. "[A]ctual injury need not be shown," id., because "representations made [with the] capacity or tendency to deceive" satisfy the standard. Federal Trade Commission v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 317 F.2d 669, 674 (2d Cir.1963); Charles of the Ritz Distributors Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 143 F.2d 676, 680 (2d Cir.1944). Although these cases were decided under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1), interpretations of its Vermont counterpart, § 2453(a), are "guided by the construction of similar terms contained in ... the Federal Trade Commission Act." 9 V.S.A. § 2453(b). We adopt the tests for deception in International Harvester and Sterling Drug as those to be applied under Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act.

The trial court denied relief because the "clipped" condition of the Saab did not cause "difficulties"; the car did not break down nor did its fair market value diminish at any point. After considering these elements, the trial court concluded that P.J.'s failure to accurately represent the vehicle was not material because the car did not present any "undesirable consequence as far as its reliability, safety or fair market value." The court's conclusion that plaintiff did not prove "materiality" obviously cannot be reconciled with the findings. P.J.'s purported to sell plaintiff a 1974 Saab. It is a material misrepresentation to call the vehicle a 1974 Saab because the rear wheels, trunk, and parts of its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Baker v. State
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1999
    ... ... , Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., and Lawson M. Vicario and S. Elizabeth Foster ... ...
  • Citaramanis v. Hallowell
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1991
    ...attorney's fees, and exemplary damages, but does not require proof of actual injury or damage. See Peabody v. P.J.'s Auto Village, Inc., 153 Vt. 55, 58-59, 569 A.2d 460, 463 (1989).5 The Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93A, § 9 (1985), was amended in 1979 by deleting ......
  • Moffitt v. Icynene, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
    • December 27, 2005
    ...the VCFA for renting an apartment in violation of the law. L'Esperance, 175 Vt. at 298, 830 A.2d 675. In Peabody v. P.J.'s Auto Village, Inc., 153 Vt. 55, 58, 569 A.2d 460 (1989), the defendant was liable for failing to disclose to the buyer the actual condition of the used car. The court f......
  • Badgley v. Walton
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • August 20, 2010
    ... ... Scott's Constr., Inc., 543 F.Supp.2d 341, 346 (D.Vt.2008) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT