Ocana v. Ford Motor Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that, among other allegations, that exercising control over “provid[ing] warranty service paid for by” the manufacturer “neither individually nor collectively support the existence of an agency relationship” with the dealership
• stating that whether there has been a breach of a limited express warranty under the MMWA is governed by state law
• allowing a dealer to “hold itself out” as 4 authorized dealer, displaying Ford logos and other advertising, providing warranty, and 5 training personnel insufficient to establish agency
• “Under Florida law, privity of contract is required to maintain an action for breach of an implied warranty.”
• “The complaint is devoid of any allegation of some of the tell-tale signs of a principal-agent relationship, such as the ability of the principal to hire, fire, or supervise dealership employees or dealer ownership.”
• an agency relationship can establish the requisite privity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).