Case: Treadway v. Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc.9
Facts: Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile (GCO), a car dealership, sent an unsolicited letter to Tonja
Treadway notifying her that she was “pre-approved” for the financing to purchase a car. In fact,
Treadway had recently filed for bankruptcy and was not eligible for credit, a fact GCO knew. GCO
promised to apply for a loan on Treadway’s behalf, but never did. Instead it told her she had to have a
cosigner. Her godmother, Pearlie Smith, agreed to cosign. When GCO presented Smith with the
papers, she did not read them, so she did not realize that she was in fact agreeing to purchase and pay
for the car herself. After Treadway made the first payment on behalf of Smith, both women refused to
pay more – Smith because she did not want a new car; Treadway because the car was not hers. The
financing company repossessed the car but continued to demand payment.
GCO was running a scam. It would lure desperate prospects off the bankruptcy rolls and into the
showroom with promises of financing for a used car, and then sell a new car to their “co-signer” (who
was, in fact, the sole signer). Instead of selling a used car to Tonja Treadway, GCO sold a new car to
Pearlie Smith.
Treadway sued GCO, alleging that it had violated the ECOA by not notifying her that it had taken
an adverse action against her. The district court granted GCO’s motion for summary judgment on the
grounds that GCO had not committed an adverse action under the ECOA. This appeal followed.
Issue: Did Gateway violate the ECOA?
Holding: Judgment for GCO reversed. The term, “adverse action” includes “a denial or revocation of
credit.” By deciding not to send Treadway’s application to any lender, GCO effectively denied her
credit. Since GCO did not tell Treadway of its decision not even to apply for a loan on her behalf, it
would be difficult for her ever to determine that she was the victim of discrimination. Car dealers
could throw the credit report of every minority applicant in the “circular file” and none would be the
wiser.
Question: Did Treadway ever file a loan application?
Question: Then how could she claim that she had been denied credit?
Question: Did the court rule that GCO had discriminated?
Answer: No, but it ruled that failing to tell her the truth was an “adverse action”. The statute
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
The goal of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is to provide more protection to consumers. Note,
however, that the Act does not require manufacturers or sellers to provide a warranty on their products.
Instead, the goal of the Act is to:
ensure that consumers understand the terms of a warranty before they buy a product,
enable consumers to compare warranty options before buying,
encourage sellers to compete on the basis of the warranties they provide (which has happened
in the auto industry), and
ensure that sellers abide by the terms of any warranties they offer.
</ Additional Case: Muchisky v. Frederic Roong2
Thomas Muchisky hired Frederic Roofing Company to re-roof his home. Their contract included a
12-year warranty guaranteeing the roof would be free from defects in workmanship and materials. The
2 838 S.W.2d 74, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1287 Missouri Court of Appeals, 1992