Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
GILDEA, Chief Justice.
In this case we are asked to determine whether a seller's fraudulent statements about the condition and fitness of a vehicle being sold prevent the seller from enforcing disclaimers in purchase documents stating that the buyer purchased the vehicle "as is." The court of appeals concluded that under Minn. Stat. § 336.2-316 (2016), the seller's fraudulent statements prevented the seller from enforcing the "as is" disclaimers. The court also concluded that the district court did not err when it awarded relief on both fraud and breach of warranty theories. Because we…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- Specialized Tours, Inc. v. HagenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Ganley Brothers, Inc. v. Butler Brothers Bldg. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Blankenship v. Northtown Ford, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1981
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- LaPenotiere v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- HCC Manufacturing, LLC v. Jeffrey A. Robinson and Capital Avenue CorporationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2026
- In re AliCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019
- Sadeghi-A v. Daimler Trucks North America LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.