Court of Appeals hears Tidwell v. Jensen appeal over allegedly misrepresented used car, buyer's‑guide and inspection dispute

A three‑judge Utah Court of Appeals panel heard arguments in Tidwell v. Jensen, an appeal from a district court decision rejecting fraud and Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA) claims arising from a used‑car purchase. Appellant Richard Tidwell contends the dealer and salesperson misrepresented the vehicle's condition, presented a counterfeit safety inspection certificate and that contractual "as‑is" language and the buyer's guide cannot shield defendants from statutory or tort liability.

The appeal centers on two legal questions: whether the UCSPA (as written at the time of sale) or the FTC used‑car rule requires proof the seller knew a statement was false (a knowledge or intent‑to‑deceive standard), and whether an "as‑is" buyer's guide or motor‑vehicle contract can bar a consumer from pursuing tort remedies such as fraud. Tidwell's counsel also pointed to auction inspection flags and other documentary notes as evidence the seller knew or should have known of frame damage.

Why it matters: If the court adopts a knowledge or intent requirement for UCSPA claims, plaintiffs will face a higher burden to prove dealer misconduct. If, conversely, the court accepts a broader statutory reading or follows FTC regulatory policy, written "as‑is" disclaimers may not foreclose certain consumer claims.

Facts and record highlights

- Tidwell purchased a used vehicle marked "as‑is." Appellant's counsel said the…