A purchaser of a used car from a car dealer was forced to repair the motor shortly thereafter and contended that certain details were not disclosed to her. The purchaser sold the vehicle at a significantly lower price than the purchase price and sued the dealer.
The Court held that misrepresentation at the time of entry of a contract is also the non-disclosure of facts which, under law, custom or circumstances, should have been disclosed. In the sale of a used vehicle by a car dealer there is a duty under law to provide a due diligence disclosure form, and therefore the non-producing of a form constitutes a misrepresentation and also prevents the dealer from raising any defense relating to oral disclosures allegedly given as to the condition of the vehicle. Thus, the Court held that the merchant is to compensate the purchaser.