## Facts

- Frank Delay bought a new 1973 Ford from Hearn Ford on December 23, 1972 and traded in his 1967 Chevrolet, whose odometer read about 72,000 miles.
- After repeated problems with the new Ford, Hearn Ford replaced it with another new Ford, which also proved unsatisfactory.
- Delay sold the second new Ford back to Hearn Ford’s used-car manager (Kenneth E. Jones) and repurchased his original 1967 Chevrolet for cash on January 19, 1973, one day after the federal odometer statute became effective (January 18, 1973).
- While driving home from the January 19 repurchase, Delay noticed the Chevrolet’s odometer read under 49,000 miles, materially lower than when he had traded it in.
- Delay promptly called Jones, who could not explain the mileage difference.
- Jones submitted an affidavit asserting that after the vehicle returned from a clean-up shop and on or after January 18, 1973, the odometer was not altered; the affidavit did not address any alteration between the December 23 trade-in and delivery to the clean-up shop.
- Delay’s son-in-law, a police officer, submitted an affidavit stating he had frequently driven the Chevrolet and knew its odometer read at least 65,000 miles before the trade-in.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal odometer statute applied to the January 19, 1973 resale transaction and required proof that the alleged odometer alteration (or actionable conduct) occurred on or after January 18, 1973.
2. Whether the record created a genuine dispute of material fact as to when and by whom the odometer was altered and whether the dealer knew or had reason to know the mileage was inaccurate at the time of the January 19 transfer.
3. Whether the dealer was entitled to summary judgment on the statutory claim based on its affidavits and the statute’s effective-date limitation.

## Decision

- The court denied Hearn Ford’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that the mileage discrepancy, the supporting affidavits, and the limited temporal scope of the dealer’s affidavit evidence left material factual disputes for resolution at a later stage.
- The case was allowed to proceed on the federal odometer-based claim.

## Legal Principles

- The federal odometer provisions apply only to actionable conduct occurring on or after their effective date, but a post-effective-date transfer may still be actionable if it involves statutory violations tied to that transfer.
- A transferor’s liability under the odometer statute may arise from transferring a vehicle with a materially inaccurate odometer reading where the transferor knew or had reason to know the mileage was not the true mileage.
- Summary judgment is improper when evidence permits competing inferences on material facts, including when the odometer alteration occurred and what the dealer knew or should have known during the relevant transfer.

## Conclusion

Because the vehicle was resold to the plaintiff after the statute’s effective date and the evidence supported an inference that the odometer reading had been materially reduced without a satisfactory explanation, the court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding statutory liability and denied the dealer’s motion for summary judgment.


Delay v. Hearn Ford, 373 F. Supp. 791 (D.S.C. 1974)