This is not a complete defense to fraud or consumer fraud
Even if the dealer would have sold the car as is, this is not a defense to fraud or consumer fraud.
The dealer’s position that their ‘disclaimer’ protects them from any affirmative misrepresentations they made is clearly without merit and without support under the law.
The standard is whether or not the disclosures made to the plaintiff had the capacity to mislead. The dealership states that the vehicle has not been in an accident then they give disclaimers that they are not sure whether the vehicle has been in accident.
Clearly, these are contradictory disclosures and have the capacity to mislead the plaintiff and in fact did mislead the plaintiff. The defense claims that the plaintiff cannot justifiably rely upon the statements as to the fact as to whether or not there was an accident is not supported by law.
The issue of approximate cost and/or reliance is one for a trier of fact to determine rather than to determine on a motion.