## Facts

- Giuseppe Ventura bought a new 1978 Mercury Marquis Brougham from Marino Auto Sales, an authorized Ford dealer.
- The sales paperwork purported to disclaim all express and implied warranties by the dealer and manufacturer except those contained in Ford’s written limited warranty.
- Ford’s limited warranty promised repair or replacement of defective parts within a stated period and contemplated that authorized dealers would perform warranty service.
- Soon after delivery, Ventura and his wife experienced persistent engine hesitation and stalling.
- Ventura repeatedly returned the vehicle to Marino for repair attempts, but the defect continued.
- Ford’s zone service manager inspected the car and recommended replacing an exhaust regulator valve; Ventura claimed he was told the car was not defective and he would have to live with it.
- Ventura sued for rescission and warranty-based relief against both the dealer and Ford; the dealer cross-claimed against Ford for indemnification.
- After a bench trial, the court (1) granted rescission and awarded Ventura $6,745.59 against the dealer (reflecting a use allowance and tax adjustments), (2) awarded the dealer $2,910.59 against Ford on indemnity, and (3) awarded Ventura $5,165 in attorney’s fees against Ford under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; it denied interest, punitive damages, and treble damages.
- Ford appealed, challenging liability determinations, the fee award, and several trial-management rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether a manufacturer that provides a written limited warranty may enforce contractual disclaimers to defeat implied-warranty and other warranty remedies for a defective vehicle.
2. Whether lack of contractual privity between the consumer and manufacturer bars the consumer’s warranty-based claim against the manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss and related state warranty law.
3. Whether a manufacturer can avoid direct responsibility by pointing to an authorized dealer’s role in performing warranty repairs.
4. Whether the consumer may recover attorney’s fees from the manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss when the principal rescission/refund judgment is entered against the dealer and the manufacturer’s monetary exposure is reflected through indemnity and fee-shifting.
5. Whether alleged procedural errors in severance, scheduling, or proceeding in the dealer’s counsel’s absence required reversal for prejudice.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all respects.
- The court upheld the finding that the vehicle had a substantial, continuing defect that persisted despite repeated repair attempts.
- The court held Ford breached its express warranty obligations and could not use disclaimers to negate preserved warranty protections once it issued a written warranty governed by Magnuson-Moss.
- The court rejected Ford’s privity defense and permitted the consumer to proceed against the manufacturer on the warranty claim.
- The court held Ford remained accountable for effective warranty performance through its authorized dealer network; the dealer’s failure to repair did not relieve Ford of warranty liability.
- The court affirmed the attorney’s fee award against Ford under Magnuson-Moss, treating Ventura as a prevailing consumer despite the refund judgment running against the dealer.
- The court found no reversible prejudice from the challenged trial-management rulings, noting Ford elected to rest without presenting evidence.

## Legal Principles

- When a manufacturer provides a written warranty covered by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, it cannot disclaim implied warranties in a manner inconsistent with the Act’s restrictions.
- Under Magnuson-Moss, a consumer’s warranty claim against a warrantor-manufacturer is not defeated solely by the absence of direct contractual privity.
- A manufacturer that channels warranty performance through authorized dealers remains responsible for fulfillment of its warranty obligations; dealer repair failures do not extinguish the manufacturer’s liability for breach of warranty.
- A consumer may recover reasonable attorney’s fees under Magnuson-Moss upon prevailing in a warranty action, including where the consumer’s principal monetary recovery is structured through rescission against the dealer coupled with manufacturer breach findings and dealer indemnity.
- Appellate relief based on trial-management decisions requires a showing of actual prejudice; tactical choices to withhold evidence do not convert routine procedural rulings into reversible error.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division affirmed rescission-based relief arising from a persistently defective vehicle and held that Ford’s written warranty triggered Magnuson-Moss limits on disclaimers, eliminated privity barriers to consumer enforcement, preserved manufacturer responsibility despite dealer-performed service, and supported an attorney’s fee award against Ford even though the refund judgment was entered against the dealer.


Ventura v. Ford Motor Corp., 180 N.J. Super. 45, 433 A.2d 801 (App. Div. 1981)