Monica Natowicz recently bought a used car from Uncle Buck’s Car Yard. After owning it for only one week, the car’s engine failed, and her mechanic told her that she would have to change the engine. Monica complained to the owner of Uncle Buck’s Car Yard, Buck Buckley, that she had been tricked into buying a car with a defective engine. Specifically, Monica referenced the sign Buck had placed on the 10-year old
Ford Escape that stated "the most reliable old car around," and "with an engine that lasts." Uncle Buck, on the other hand, told Monica that the car engine’s failing was likely a result of Monica’s negligent driving, and that he would not refund any money. Consequently, Monica took Buck to court, arguing that Uncle Buck had used deceptive advertising in selling her a used car. The court agreed with Monica, concluding the two claims were material misrepresentations that would likely deceive a reasonable consumer.

But what if the facts of the case were different? Select each set of facts below that could change the outcome of the case.

A- The car Buck sold to Monica did not have a buyer’s guide label attached to it at the time of the transaction.

B- The court opined that the two statements Buck had used to advertise the Ford Escape was a misrepresentation of the car’s quality and potentially misleading. However, the court concluded that a reasonable consumer would know to not trust, and subsequently be misled, by such statements in making a purchasing decision.

C- Uncle Buck included a label on the car that suggested that a buyer obtain an inspection for the Ford Escape before purchasing the car.

D- Instead of stating the two quotations that Monica references, Uncle Buck’s sign stated only the following: "the best car to have ever existed."