Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc., 212 Ariz. 381

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court held that conflicting contract documents and parol evidence created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a used-car dealer entered into a service contract with the purchaser under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The court further held that a separately paid service contract was not a written warranty under the Act. It vacated the court of appeals' decision, reversed the superior court's summary judgment for the dealer, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Whether Earnhardt entered into the service contract was a question of fact, not an issue resolvable as a matter of law on the existing record.
2. A service contract purchased for separate consideration cannot also constitute a written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence established as a matter of law that Earnhardt entered into a service contract with Johnson under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
2. Whether the DaimlerChrysler service contract and application constituted a written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
3. Whether summary judgment for Earnhardt was proper when the service-contract documents and parol evidence created genuine issues of material fact.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded