__________________________

                         DENIED: September 5, 1997
                        __________________________


                                GSBCA 14050


                               JOY J. HURST,

                                        Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                        Respondent.

     Joy J. Hurst, pro se, Fayetteville, GA.

     George U. Lane and Gabriel N. Steinberg, Office of Regional
Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for
Respondent.
     
Before Board Judges PARKER, NEILL, and VERGILIO.

PARKER, Board Judge.

     Joy J. Hurst has appealed the decision of the General Services
Administration (GSA) denying her request to return to GSA for a
refund a car which Ms. Hurst purchased at a GSA auction.  For the
reasons discussed below, we deny the appeal.

                             Findings of Fact

     On May 11, 1995, Ms. Hurst and her husband attended an auction
of Government-owned vehicles held at Fort Gillem, Georgia.  The
vehicles had been made available for inspection on May 10, 1995.

     The bid package given to Ms. Hurst and incorporated by
reference into the contract contained the following provision:

                           DESCRIPTION WARRANTY

          THE GOVERNMENT WARRANTS TO THE ORIGINAL
          PURCHASER THAT THE PROPERTY LISTED IN THE
          INVITATION FOR BIDS WILL CONFORM TO ITS
          DESCRIPTION.  IF A MISDESCRIPTION IS
          DETERMINED BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY, THE
          GOVERNMENT WILL KEEP THE PROPERTY AND REFUND
          ANY MONEY PAID.  IF A MISDESCRIPTION IS
          DETERMINED AFTER REMOVAL, THE GOVERNMENT WILL
          REFUND THE MONEY PAID IF THE PURCHASER TAKES
          THE PROPERTY AT HIS OR HER EXPENSE TO A
          LOCATION SPECIFIED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. 
          NO REFUND WILL BE MADE UNLESS THE PURCHASER
          SUBMITS A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CONTRACTING
          OFFICER WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF
          REMOVAL THAT THE PROPERTY IS MISDESCRIBED AND
          MAINTAINS THE PROPERTY IN THE SAME CONDITION
          AS WHEN REMOVED. . . .

          THIS WARRANTY IS IN PLACE OF ALL OTHER
          GUARANTEES AND WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
          IMPLIED. . . . THE PURCHASER IS NOT ENTITLED
          TO ANY PAYMENT FOR LOSS OF PROFIT OR ANY OTHER
          MONEY DAMAGES, SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR
          CONSEQUENTIAL.

Appeal File, Exhibit 1.

     Appellant was the successful bidder on a vehicle described as
a 1988 Buick LeSabre, with a vehicle identification number (VIN) of
1G4HR14C9JH495834.  She paid the bid price of $1,600 and took
possession of the car.  The VIN contained in the description of the
vehicle was correct.

     On October 22, 1996 -- seventeen months after purchasing the
car -- appellant informed GSA that the Standard Form 97, which GSA
provides as evidence of title so that purchasers can obtain a state
motor vehicle registration, had the wrong VIN on it.  Apparently,
the number on the form had been taken from one of the doors of the
vehicle.  When appellant attempted to sell the car, the sales
agent with whom she was dealing informed her that the car could not
be titled in the State of Georgia because the Standard Form 97
contained the incorrect VIN.  GSA promptly issued a corrected
Standard Form 97 to appellant and later offered to obtain a title
from the State of Georgia at no cost to appellant.  Appellant
declined GSA's offer and filed a claim asking that GSA take the car
back, refund the purchase price, and pay appellant $200 for her
trouble with the Georgia motor vehicle bureau (appellant and her
husband took two days off work).  When GSA denied the claim on
November 27, 1996, this appeal ensued.

                                Discussion

     As stated in the contract, the Government warrants only that
the vehicle purchased will conform with its description.  If the
vehicle does not conform with its description, the purchaser has
fifteen days to return it for a refund.  This is the only warranty
offered by the Government at vehicle auctions.

     Here, the vehicle purchased by appellant did conform to its
description  --  appellant bid on and received a 1988 Buick LeSabre
with a VIN of 1G4HR14C9JH495834.  The error, which notwithstanding
appellant's protestations to the contrary, was clerical in nature,
was contained in the Standard Form 97, not in the description of
the vehicle.  Moreover, even if the error could somehow be
considered a misdescription, appellant would not be entitled to a
refund because she did not bring the matter to GSA's attention
until seventeen months after taking possession of the vehicle. 
There simply is no legal basis for demanding that GSA take the car
back and refund the purchase price.  Similarly, there is no basis
for GSA to pay appellant $200 for taking time off work to deal with
the Georgia motor vehicle bureau.  There has been no breach of the
warranty of description.  Even if there had been, the clause
specifically provides that the purchaser is not entitled to any
money damages.  Appellant has not demonstrated any other material
breach of the contract which would give rise to the requested
relief.  GSA's prompt correction of the Standard Form 97 and its
offer to obtain a new title for appellant were appropriate
responses to the situation.

                                 Decision

     The appeal is DENIED.




                                   ______________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge


We concur:



_____________________
EDWIN B. NEILL
Board Judge




_____________________
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
Board Judge