Court rules in lemon car deal

By Cy Ryan

Friday, May 11, 2012 | 5:24 p.m.

A California man is going to get another chance to prove he was sold a lemon in a used car deal in Las Vegas.

And the case before the Nevada Supreme Court enforces the advice that a person should carefully read the terms of any purchase before closing the deal.

Patrick Radcliff says he was given a vehicle inspection report describing the condition of the vehicle when he purchased a 1995 Honda Civic for $5,100 in March of 2010. The advertised price was $5,900.

He claims that two days after the purchase, the vehicle developed a host of problems.

He filed suit claiming breach of contract and express warranty, bad faith, deceptive trade practices and concealment. He believed the dealer knew about the defects and concealed them.

But he also signed a buyer’s guide that says he is making the purchase of the car “As is - no warranty.” It also includes a statement that the dealer assumes no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle.

Defendants are Southern Nevada Commercial Services, Lira Motors, Andrey Kulakov and Yusif Amiraslanov.

District Judge Kathy Hardcastle granted a pre-trial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, saying Radcliff “failed to set forth sufficient specificity as to the fraud claim” and he failed to show a basis for express warranty.

The Supreme Court said “A vehicle inspection report may constitute such warranty where it is part of the basis of the bargain.” It said Judge Hardcastle was wrong when she dismissed the breach of warranty argument.

In returning the case to Judge Hardcastle, the court indicated however that Radcliff might have a hard time proving his claim.

The court said Radcliff claimed the express warranty stands despite the “as is” in the contract. But the court said, “It does not appear beyond doubt that he can prove any set of facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief under this claim.”