Case Law Summaries

Ney v. Panero

• Opinion Date: August 28, 2001
• Business Law
• E-Mail

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT—A seller of consumer goods is not liable under the Consumer Fraud Act for discrepancies between a product’s actual specifications and those described in a sales brochure when the product matched the actual sample of the product examined by the buyer prior to purchase and the buyer.

A buyer purchased a modular home to be installed on its property. While in the seller’s showroom, the buyer picked up a brochure that promised a high-efficiency heater. The purchase, however, was based upon the buyer’s viewing of a house owned by another customer of the modular home dealer and a list of specifications set forth in the purchase agreement. The brochure contained numerous additional provisions that were not part of the contract. There was no evidence that the specifications in the brochure were made as verbal or written representations to the buyer. The Court found that the seller made no representations to the buyer about the efficiency of the heater installed in the house. The contract itself made reference to a “York Hi Eff gas h/a heat,” but did not specify the rate of efficiency. The actual heater had the same efficiency as the heater installed in the home that had been shown to the buyer. The Appellate Division agreed with the lower court and held that the buyer could not rely on a brochure picked from a table. Consequently, there was no misrepresentation as to the heater and therefore no violation of the Consumer Fraud Act occurred. The seller was entitled to payment of the balance of the purchase price.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.