In Quillen v. Car City, Inc., the California Court of Appeals recently reversed the trial court's decision by saying that there was no evidence presented at trial proving that the dealer's alleged oral representation was actually false. The alleged representation by the dealer representative was that the car was safe. The Court of Appeals found there was no evidence presented by the Plaintiff that the car was actually unsafe at the time of sale. They only presented evidence of the car being unsafe months later and after 14,000 miles was put on the car by the customer.

The lawsuit was originally brought by Michael Quillen, a consumer and car purchaser, against the dealer, Car City, for fraud, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in connection with Quillen’s purchase of a used vehicle from Car City. Quillen alleged that Car City had misrepresented the safety and condition of the vehicle, which allegedly had frame damage that had not been repaired.

During the trial, Quillen testified that he test drove the vehicle before purchasing it and did not detect any issues during the test drive. However, according to the decision, he later found out that the vehicle had been in a bad accident in the past and incurred frame damage. Quillen asked to get a third-party inspection of the vehicle, but the Car City employee became upset and would not let the vehicle leave the lot. Nevertheless, Quillen purchased the vehicle, in part because the certificate of title did not indicate "salvage title," as it should have had the vehicle been salvaged.

The lower court found that Car City had made a misrepresentation in December 2015 that the vehicle was safe to drive, but also found that Car City did not know that the vehicle was not safe and relied on a safety inspection report from Steve's Muffler, which was a reasonable basis for the representation. The trial court further found that Quillen was not credible in his account of the business transaction with Car City and specifically did not find Quillen's testimony that Car City had refused to permit him to obtain an independent inspection as credible.

As to the CLRA claim, the trial court ruled in Quillen's favor, finding that Car City had misrepresented that the vehicle was safe to drive, which constituted a "deceptive act [] or practice [] in the sale of consumer goods" as required for a CLRA violation. However, the trial court ruled in Car City's favor on the UCL claim, finding that Quillen had not established a separate unlawful practice beyond the CLRA violation.

The Court of Appeal later reversed the judgment as to the CLRA and UCL causes of action against Car City and reversed the award of attorney fees and costs. The Court of Appeal found no evidence that the Car City employee statements on which Quillen based those claims were actually false or misleading. The UCL claim was likewise unsupported by the record, so the judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part.