Manassas Autocars, Inc. t/a Manassas Chrysler v. Daniel T. Couch, et al.

645 S.E.2d 443 (Va. 2007) · Supreme Court of Virginia · June 8, 2007 · No. Record No. 061458

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether a motor vehicle dealer's advertisement complied with a statutory requirement governing disclosure of limited vehicle availability and whether the dealer could invoke a related administrative regulation as a defense to claims under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The court held that the regulation conflicted with the plain language of the statute and that the buyers could pursue their VCPA claim. The court also affirmed submission of the buyers' revocation-of-acceptance claim to the jury because repainting the vehicle substantially impaired its value to buyers who intended to purchase a new vehicle.

Holdings

  1. The regulation conflicted with the statute because the statute requires a new-vehicle advertisement to clearly and conspicuously disclose, in addition to any stock number, that it relates to only one vehicle. The regulation improperly allowed the stock number alone to indicate limited availability.
  2. The Couches could pursue a VCPA claim because the statutory exemption for conduct authorized by law or regulation does not exempt conduct merely because it is regulated. The exemption applies only to conduct actually sanctioned by statute or regulation.
  3. The trial court properly submitted the revocation-of-acceptance claim to the jury because the evidence could support a finding that repainting substantially impaired the vehicle's value to the Couches.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Motor Vehicle Board regulation permitting stock numbers to disclose limited availability conflicted with Code § 46.2-1581(12)(a).
  2. Whether the Couches could maintain a Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim based on the alleged violation of Code § 46.2-1581(12)(a), notwithstanding Code § 59.1-199(A)'s exemption for aspects of consumer transactions authorized by law or regulation.
  3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit the Couches' revocation-of-acceptance claim to the jury under Code § 8.2-608.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (7)

  • Sargent Electric Co. v. Woodall, 228 Va. 419, 424, 323 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1984)(followed)
  • Commonwealth v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary, 202 Va. 13, 19, 116 S.E.2d 44, 48 (1960)(followed)
  • Judicial Inquiry & Review Comm'n v. Elliott, 272 Va. 97, 115, 630 S.E.2d 485, 494 (2006)(followed)
  • General Motors Corp. v. Dep't of Taxation, 268 Va. 289, 292-95, 602 S.E.2d 123, 125-26 (2004)(followed)
  • Virginia Department of Taxation v. Blanks Oil Co., 255 Va. 242, 246-47, 498 S.E.2d 914, 916 (1998)(followed)
  • WTAR Radio-TV Corp. v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 877, 879-80, 234 S.E.2d 245, 246-47 (1977)(followed)
  • Gasque v. Mooers Motor Car Co., 227 Va. 154, 313 S.E.2d 384 (1984)(distinguished)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…