It is unlawful for any dealer to:
A. require a retail purchaser of a new motor vehicle, as a condition of sale and
delivery thereof, to purchase special features, equipment, parts or accessories not
ordered or desired by the purchaser, provided such features, equipment, parts or
accessories are not already installed on the new motor vehicle when received by the
dealer;
B. use false, deceptive or misleading advertising in connection with his business;
C. willfully defraud any retail buyer to the buyer's damage;
D. fail to perform the obligations placed on the dealer in connection with the delivery
and preparation of a new motor vehicle for retail sale as provided in the manufacturer's
preparation and delivery agreements;
E. fail to perform the obligations placed on the dealer in connection with the
manufacturer's warranty agreements;
F. represent or sell as a new motor vehicle any motor vehicle which has been used
and operated for demonstration purposes or which is otherwise a used motor vehicle; or
G. intentionally fail to perform any written agreement with any retail buyer.
History: 1953 Comp., § 64-37-4, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 6, § 4; 1985, ch. 236, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references. — For misrepresentation of age or condition of vehicle as an
unlawful practice, see 57-12-6 NMSA 1978.
Adequate statement of claim. — Allegations sufficient to state a claim under the New
Mexico Motor Vehicle Dealers Franchising Act where car dealer affirmatively
misrepresented to her that the car was a demonstrator, failed to disclose to that the car
had been used as a rental car and had been involved in an accident. Salmeron v.
Highlands Ford Sales, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (D.N.M. 2003).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Regulation or licensing of business of
selling motor vehicles, 57 A.L.R.2d 1265, 7 A.L.R.3d 1173.
Notes of Decisions
Two Old Hippies, LLC v. Catch the Bus, LLC, 784 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (D.N.M. 2011).
· cites it 4× “In Count III, Two Old Hippies contends that: (i) the Defendants are a “motor vehicle dealer” under NMSA 1978, § 57-16-3B; (ii) the Defendants committed fraud, as defined in as defined in NMSA 1978, § 57-16-31, in connection with the sale of the buses to Two Old Hippies, in…”
Two Old Hippies, LLC v. Catch the Bus, LLC, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D.N.M. 2011).
· cites it 2× “1978, § 57-16-4 damaged Two Old Hippies. In the Complaint, Two Old Hippies asserts that the Defendants violated both subsections B and C of N.”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Anaya, 703 P.2d 169 (N.M. 1985).
“See §§ 57-16-4 through -7. According to GMC, this lack of express remedy, combined with the existence of a buyer breach of warranty remedy under Section 55-2-714 of the Uniform Commercial Code, indicates a clear legislative intent not to create a consumer cause of action against…”
Salmeron v. Highlands Ford Sales, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (D.N.M. 2003).
“§ 57-16-4(C). For purposes of this provision, “fraud” includes: “(1) a misrepresentation in any manner, whether intentionally false or due to gross negligence, of a material fact; (2) a promise or representation not made honestly and in good faith; and (3) an intentional failure…”
Gant v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D. Mich. 2021).
“” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-16-4 . Ford notes 21 that the New Mexico Plaintiffs did not buy their Fords from a Ford dealership; rather, they purchased them used from a Honda dealership and a private seller, respectively.”
— N.M. Stat. § 57-16-4(C) — 1 case
Salmeron v. Highlands Ford Sales, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (D.N.M. 2003).
“§ 57-16-4(C). For purposes of this provision, “fraud” includes: “(1) a misrepresentation in any manner, whether intentionally false or due to gross negligence, of a material fact; (2) a promise or representation not made honestly and in good faith; and (3) an intentional failure…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.