Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC

Esmarelda Sorchaga (plaintiff) bought a used Ford F-350 truck from Ride Auto, L.L.C. (defendant). Prior to buying the truck, Sorchaga’s husband had taken it for a test ride, during which he noticed that the check-engine light was on and that smoke came out of the tailpipe. Sorchaga asked Ride Auto about these issues before buying the truck. Ride Auto responded by saying that the smoke was due to the truck using diesel fuel, and that the check-engine light was the result of a faulty oxygen sensor. Ride Auto also told Sorchaga that the faulty oxygen sensor could easily be fixed and that the truck would run for a long time. However, none of this was true, and Ride Auto knew it was not true. In fact, Ride Auto had recently acquired the F-350 truck knowing it had a blown engine, resulting in a lack of power and the smoke coming out of the tailpipe. The truck could not even be driven at the time Ride Auto had acquired it, and Ride Auto had recently made small cosmetic repairs to the truck so that it could be driven a short distance. But Ride Auto never told any of this to Sorchaga or her husband and, in fact, misled her about the matter. The purchase agreement that Sorchaga signed to buy the truck from Ride Auto contained an as-is disclaimer purporting to override any possible implied warranty of merchantability. After Sorchaga purchased the truck, it was difficult to drive due to lack of power, and Ride Auto refused to repair it despite Sorchaga’s request. Sorchaga then discovered from another dealership that the truck had a blown engine and required a full engine replacement. Sorchaga brought suit against Ride Auto, alleging a claim of fraud. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Sorchaga, rejecting Ride Auto’s argument that the as-is warranty disclaimer precluded her from recovering. Ride Auto appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.