## Facts

- Williams visited Rank & Son Buick’s used-car lot intending to buy an air-conditioned vehicle.
- A salesman represented that a used Chrysler shown to Williams was air-conditioned.
- Williams test-drove the Chrysler for about 90 minutes before purchasing it.
- Several days after purchase, Williams discovered the vehicle lacked air-conditioning equipment; controls labeled “air” operated only ventilation.
- Rank & Son Buick had placed a newspaper advertisement describing the Chrysler as having “FACTORY AIR CONDITIONING,” but the advertisement first ran two days after the sale.
- Williams sued the dealership for fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging he relied on the air-conditioning representation when buying the car.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s finding of fraud was against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, given the requirement of clear and convincing proof.
2. Whether Williams proved the reliance element of fraudulent misrepresentation when the truth was readily ascertainable by inspection or testing during the extended test drive.
3. Whether Williams could recover attorney’s fees beyond the limited amounts authorized by statute and court rule.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Williams.
- The court held that Williams did not establish justifiable reliance by clear and convincing evidence because the presence or absence of air-conditioning was readily verifiable and he had ample opportunity to confirm it.
- The court rejected reliance on the newspaper advertisement as a basis for fraud because it was published after the purchase.
- The court held that attorney’s fees were not recoverable beyond the amounts allowed by applicable Wisconsin statutes and court rules.

## Legal Principles

- Fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and a trial court’s findings will not be overturned unless contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.
- Fraudulent misrepresentation requires proof that: (1) a statement of fact was untrue; (2) it was made with intent to defraud and to induce action; and (3) the plaintiff actually relied on it and was induced to act to his detriment.
- A plaintiff’s reliance must be justified under the circumstances; when the truth is obvious or easily confirmed by reasonable observation or testing, reliance on a contrary representation may be legally insufficient.
- Attorney’s fees are not recoverable absent statutory or contractual authorization, beyond limited statutory costs.

## Conclusion

The court reversed a consumer’s fraud recovery because, although the car was not air-conditioned, the buyer failed to prove justified reliance where the defect was readily discoverable during an extended test drive and inspection, and it also limited any attorney-fee recovery to amounts authorized by statute and rule.


Williams v. Rank & Son Buick, Inc., 44 Wis. 2d 239, 170 N.W.2d 807 (Wis. 1969)