Legal Opinion

Barksdale v. Van's Auto Sales, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1988No. 87-762PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Per curiam

The defendant-appellant contends that where a sale of a motor vehicle under written contract provides an “as is — no warranty” clause, such language means exactly what it states. Defendant submits that in the absence of fraud, a court cannot subsequently hold that such language is meaningless as to a portion of the vehicle which the purchaser wishes to have warranted.

In the posture the cause subjudice is presented for our consideration, it is readily apparent that the court of appeals below did not review or decide the substantive arguments of defendant since the appeal perfected by defendant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. DeHart v. Aetna Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Perotti v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Maritime Manufacturers, Inc. v. Hi-Skipper MarinaOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State v. HerzingOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Maritime Manufacturers, Inc. v. Hi-Skipper MarinaOhio Supreme Court · 1985

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group v. Licking Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Barksdale v. Van's Auto Sales, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. Marietta v. Washington Cty. Woman's Home Bd. of TrusteesOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. DCI Rentals, L.L.C. v. SammonsOhio Court of Appeals · 2024
  5. State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. GwinOhio Supreme Court · 1992

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API