## Facts

- An automobile dealer accepted Leonard Aron’s 1957 Imperial as a trade-in toward a new Cadillac.
- Months earlier, the Imperial’s engine coolant froze, and a filling-station operator discovered cracks in the motor block and informed Aron that replacement would cost several hundred dollars.
- The operator used a temporary sealer and then covered the filled cracks with gasket compound to hide the defect; he testified this concealment was done at Aron’s direction and effectively masked the cracks.
- After the concealment work, the dealer performed a brief appraisal, did not detect the defect, and allowed a higher trade-in value than it had previously discussed.
- The dealer later reconditioned and sold the Imperial; the buyer returned it due to overheating, and the dealer refunded the sale price.
- The dealer resold the Imperial at a substantially lower price with disclosure of the cracked block and sued Aron for fraud to recover losses tied to the concealed defect.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, entered judgment for the dealer for $759, reflecting the cost of a replacement block (about $500) plus reconditioning expenses (about $259).

## Issues

1. Whether intentional concealment of a material, latent defect in a trade-in vehicle can constitute actionable fraud absent an express verbal misrepresentation.
2. Whether damages for fraudulent concealment were properly measured by costs necessary to place the vehicle in the condition it was implicitly represented to be in, including replacement and reconditioning costs.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the dealer.
- The court held that Aron’s knowing concealment of the cracked motor block and his silence about the defect supported a fraud claim even without an affirmative spoken misstatement.
- The court upheld the $759 award as a proper measure of loss caused by the fraudulent concealment.

## Legal Principles

- Fraud may be proved by intentional concealment of a material fact, not only by affirmative verbal misstatements.
- Silence may be actionable where the defendant knows of a material, latent defect, intends that it not be discovered, and the defect is not discoverable through ordinary inspection.
- Evidence of affirmative steps taken to hide a defect supports an inference of intent to deceive and reliance by the other party.
- Damages for fraudulent concealment may be measured by the difference between value as implicitly represented and actual value, which may be shown by reasonable repair and related costs needed to restore the item to the represented condition.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability and damages where a trade-in owner knowingly hid a cracked engine block using temporary sealers designed to prevent detection, holding that intentional concealment and nondisclosure of a latent defect can constitute fraud and support recovery of repair and reconditioning costs caused by the deception.


Lindberg Cadillac Co. v. Aron, 371 S.W.2d 651 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963)