P purchased a car from D. P alleged that D fraudulently represented to him at the time of sale that the car was a new car when, in fact, it had over 2,000 miles on the speedometer and had been involved in an accident. P discovered the mileage recorded on the speedometer while driving home on the day of the sale. He brought this to the attention of D, and an adjustment was made whereby he was compensated in the amount of $109.86, the amount of his first payment, in exchange for a release from any further claims except for those falling within his standard new car warranty. This was made on January 27, 1970. Then in April 1970, P learned the automobile had been involved in an accident in Tennessee in July of 1969. The front and rear portions of the automobile had been welded together after having been severed in the accident. P alleged that D had knowledge of the accident but that it 'willfully concealed the true circumstances' and 'willfully, maliciously and fraudulently misrepresented the quality and condition of the car. Damages were claimed in the amount of $100,000. D moved for a directed verdict. The court granted it on P's failure to produce evidence in regard to the automobile's actual value at the time of sale deprived the jury of the only permissible standard by which the jury could determine the existence or amount of damages. P did produce expert testimony that the effects of the accident could be remedied and the car returned to new car condition by the expenditure of $800 for repairs. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.