 |
|
|
Alabama
Lemon Law Statutes
Definitions.
As
used in this chapter, the following terms shall have
the respective meanings as indicated:
-
Consumer.
The
purchaser, other than for purposes of resale, of
a new or previously untitled motor vehicle used in
substantial part for personal, family, or household
purposes, and any other person entitled by the terms
of such warranty to enforce the obligations of the
warranty.
-
Motor vehicle.
Every
vehicle intended primarily for use and operation
on the public highways which is self-propelled; provided,
however, that the term "motor vehicle" shall
not apply to motor homes or to any motor vehicle
having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more.
-
Manufacturer.
The
person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business
of manufacturing, importing and/or distributing motor
vehicles to be made available to a motor vehicle
dealer for retail sale.
-
Motor vehicle dealer or Authorized dealer.
The
person, firm, or corporation operating under a dealer
agreement from a manufacturer, importer, or distributor
and who is engaged regularly in the business of buying,
selling or exchanging motor vehicles in this state
and who has in this state an established place of
business.
-
Express warranty.
A
written warranty, so labeled, issued by the manufacturer
of a new motor vehicle, including any terms or conditions
precedent to the enforcement of obligations under
that warranty.
-
Nonconforming condition.
Any
condition of a motor vehicle which shall not be in
conformity with the terms of any express warranty
issued by the manufacturer to a consumer and which:
(i) significantly impairs the use, value or safety
of the motor vehicle and (ii) occurs or arises solely
in the course of the ordinary use of the motor vehicle,
and which does not arise or occur as a result of
abuse, neglect, modification, or alteration of the
motor vehicle not authorized by the manufacturer,
nor from any accident or other damage to the motor
vehicle which occurs or arises after such motor vehicle
was delivered by an authorized dealer to the consumer.
- Notice of a nonconforming condition.
A
written statement which shall be delivered to the
manufacturer and which shall describe the subject
motor vehicle, the nonconforming condition, and shall
describe all previous attempts to correct such nonconforming
condition by identifying the person, firm or corporation
who or which made such attempt, and the time when
such attempt was made.
-
Lemon law rights period.
The
period ending one year after the date of the original
delivery of a motor vehicle to a consumer or the
first 12,000 miles of operation, whichever first
occurs.
Section
8-20A-2
Obligations
of manufacturer.
-
If a new motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable
express warranty, and the consumer delivers the motor
vehicle to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized
dealer, and gives notice of the nonconforming condition
during the lemon law rights period, the manufacturer
of the motor vehicle shall be obligated to make such
repairs to the motor vehicle as shall be necessary
to remedy any nonconforming condition thereof. Such
repairs shall be required even after the expiration
of the lemon law rights period provided that notice
of the nonconforming condition was first given during
the lemon law rights period and provided further that
the manufacturer's obligation to repair the nonconforming
condition shall not extend beyond the period of 24
months following delivery of the vehicle or 24,000
miles, whichever occurs first.
-
If, after reasonable attempts, the manufacturer, its
agent, or its authorized dealer is unable to conform
the motor vehicle to any express warranty by repairing
or correcting a nonconforming condition of the motor
vehicle which first occurred during the lemon law rights
period, the manufacturer shall, at the option of the
consumer, replace the motor vehicle with a comparable
new motor vehicle or shall accept return of the vehicle
from the consumer and refund to the consumer the following:
- The full contract price including, but not limited
to, charges for undercoating, dealer preparation
and transportation charges, and installed options,
plus the nonrefundable portions of extended warranties
and service contracts;
-
All collateral charges, including but not limited
to, sales tax, license and registration fees, and
similar government charges;
-
All finance charges incurred by the consumer after
he first reported the nonconformity to the manufacturer,
its agent, or its authorized dealer; and
-
Any incidental damages which shall include the reasonable
cost of alternative transportation during the period
that the consumer is without the use of the motor
vehicle because of the nonconforming condition. There
shall be offset against any monetary recovery of
the consumer a reasonable allowance for the consumer's
use of the vehicle. Refunds shall be made to the
consumer, and any lien holders, as their interests
may appear. A reasonable allowance for use is that
amount directly attributable to use by the consumer
before his first report of the nonconformity to the
manufacturer, agent, or authorized dealer, and must
be calculated by multiplying the full purchase price
of the motor vehicle by a fraction having as its
denominator 100,000 and having as its numerator the
number of miles that the vehicle travelled before
the first report of nonconformity.
-
It shall be presumed that reasonable attempts to correct
a nonconforming condition have been allowed by the
consumer if, during the period of 24 months following
delivery of the vehicle or 24,000 miles, whichever
first occurs, either of the following events shall
have occurred:
- The same nonconforming condition has been subject
to repair attempts three or more times by the manufacturer,
its agents or its authorized dealers, at least one
of which occurred during the lemon law rights period,
plus a final attempt by the manufacturer, and the
same nonconforming condition continues to exist;
or
-
The motor vehicle is out of service and in the custody
of the manufacturer, its agent, or an authorized
dealer due to repair attempts (including the final
repair attempt), one of which occurred during the
lemon law rights period, for a cumulative total of
30 calendar days, unless such repair could not be
performed because of conditions beyond the control
of the manufacturer, its agents or authorized dealers,
such as war, invasion, strike, fire, flood, or other
natural disaster.
Section
8-20A-3
Cause
of action against manufacturer.
- A consumer sustaining damages as a proximate consequence
of the failure by a manufacturer to perform its obligations
imposed under this chapter may bring a civil action
against the manufacturer to enforce the provisions
of this chapter. Prior to the commencement of any such
proceeding a consumer must give notice of a nonconforming
condition by certified United States mail to the manufacturer
and demand correction or repair of the nonconforming
condition. If at the time such notice of a nonconforming
condition is given to the manufacturer, a presumption
has arisen that reasonable attempts to correct a nonconforming
condition have been allowed, the manufacturer shall
be given a final opportunity to cure the nonconforming
condition. The manufacturer shall within seven calendar
days of receiving the written notice of nonconforming
condition notify the consumer of a reasonably accessible
repair facility. After delivery of the new vehicle
to the authorized repair facility by the consumer,
the manufacturer shall attempt to correct the nonconforming
condition and conform the vehicle to the express warranty
within a period not to exceed 14 calendar days. If
a manufacturer has established an informal dispute
settlement procedure which is in compliance with federal
rules and regulations, a consumer must first exhaust
any remedy afforded to the consumer under the informal
dispute procedure of the manufacturer before a cause
of action may be instituted under the provisions of
this chapter.
-
It shall be an affirmative defense to any claim against
the manufacturer under this chapter that:
- an alleged
nonconforming condition does not significantly impair
the use, market value, or safety of the motor vehicle;
or
- a nonconforming condition is a result of abuse,
neglect, or any modification or alteration of a motor
vehicle by a consumer that is not authorized by the
manufacturer.
-
If it is determined that the manufacturer has breached
its obligations imposed under this chapter, then the
consumer shall be entitled to recover, in addition
to the remedy provided under Section 8-20A-2 above,
an additional award for reasonable attorneys fees.
Section
8-20A-4
Resale
of returned motor vehicle.
If
a motor vehicle has been returned to the manufacturer
under the provisions of this chapter or a similar statute
of another state, whether as the result of a legal
action or as the result of an informal dispute settlement
proceeding, it may not be resold in this state unless:
- The manufacturer discloses in writing to the subsequent
purchaser the fact that the motor vehicle was returned
under the provisions of this chapter and the nature
of the nonconformity to the vehicle warranty.
-
The manufacturer returns the title of the motor vehicle
to the Alabama Department of Revenue advising of
the return of the motor vehicle under provisions
of this chapter with an application for title in
the name of the manufacturer. The Department of Revenue
shall brand the title issued to the manufacturer
and all subsequent titles to the motor vehicle with
the following statement:
THIS
VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE
IT DID NOT CONFORM TO ITS WARRANTY.
Section
8-20A-5
No
dealership liability.
Nothing
in this chapter imposes any liability upon a motor
vehicle dealer or authorized dealer or creates a cause
of action by a consumer against a motor vehicle dealer
or authorized dealer. A motor vehicle dealer or authorized
dealer may not be made a party defendant in any action
involving or relating to this chapter. The manufacturer
shall not charge back or require reimbursement by a
motor vehicle dealer or authorized dealer for any costs,
including, but not limited to, any refunds or vehicle
replacements, incurred by the manufacturer arising
out of this chapter.
Section
8-20A-6
Statute
of limitations.
Any
action brought under this chapter against the manufacturer
shall be commenced within three years following the
date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to the
consumer. |
|
The
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is a Federal Law that protects the buyer of any product which costs more than $25 and comes with an express written warranty.
This law applies to any product that you buy that does not perform as it should.
Your car is a major investment, rationalized by the peace of mind that flows from its expected dependability and safety. Accordingly, you are entitled
to expect an automobile properly constructed and regulated to provide reasonably safe, trouble-free, and dependable transportation – regardless
of the exact make and model you bought. Unfortunately, sometimes these principles do not hold true and defects arise in automobiles. Although one defect
is not actionable, repeated defects are as there exists a generally accepted rule that unsuccessful repair efforts render the warrantor liable. Simply
put, there comes a time when “enough is enough” – when after having to take your car into the shop for repairs an inordinate number
of times and experiencing all of the attendant inconvenience, you are entitled to say, ‘That’s all,’ and revoke, notwithstanding the
seller’s repeated good faith efforts to fix the car. The rationale behind these basic principles is clear: once your faith in the vehicle is shaken,
the vehicle loses its real value to you and becomes an instrument whose integrity is impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension. The question
thus becomes when is “enough”?
As you know, enough is never enough from your warrantor’s point of view and you should simply continue to have your defective vehicle repaired – time
and time again. However, you are not required to allow a warrantor to tinker with your vehicle indefinitely in the hope that it may eventually be fixed.
Rather, you are entitled to expect your vehicle to be repaired within a reasonable opportunity. To this end, both the federal Moss Warranty Act, and
the various state “lemon laws,” require repairs to your vehicle be performed within a reasonable opportunity.
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, a warrantor should perform adequate repairs in at least two, and possibly three, attempts to correct a particular defect. Further, the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act’s reasonableness requirement applies to your vehicle as a whole rather than to each individual defect
that arises. Although most of the Lemon Laws vary from state to state, each individual law usually require a warrantor to cure a specific defect within
four to five attempts or the automobile as a whole within thirty days. If the warrantor fails to meet this obligation, most of the lemon laws provide
for a full refund or new replacement vehicle. Further, this reasonable number of attempts/reasonable opportunity standard, whether it be that of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or that of the Lemon Laws, is akin to strict liability – once this threshold has been met, the continued existence of
a defect is irrelevant and you are still entitled to relief.
One of the most important parts of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is its fee shifting
provision. This provision provides that you may recover the attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of your case if you are successful – independent
of how much you actually win. That rational behind this fee shifting provision is to twofold: (1) to ensure you will be able to vindicate your rights
without having to expend large sums on attorney's fees and (2) because automobile manufacturers are able to write off all expenses of defense as a
legitimate business expense, whereas you, the average consumer, obviously does not have that kind of economic staying power. Most of the Lemon Laws contain
similar fee shifting provisions.
You may also derive additional warranty rights from the Uniform Commercial Code; however, the Code does not allow you
in most states to recover your attorney fees and is also not as consumer friendly as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or the various state lemon laws.
The narrative information on Magnuson-Moss, UCC and lemon laws on these pages is provided by Marshall Meyers, attorney.
|
|
Uniform
Commercial Code Summary
The Uniform Commercial Code or UCC has been enacted in all 50 states and some of the territories of the United States. It is the primary source of law
in all contracts dealing with the sale of products. The TARR refers to Tender, Acceptance, Rejection, Revocation and applies to different aspects of
the consumer's "relationship" with the purchased goods.
TENDER -
The tender provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code contained in Section2-601 provide that the buyer is entitled to reject any goods that fail in
any respect to conform to the contract. Unfortunately, new cars are often technically complex and their innermost workings are beyond the understanding
of the average new car buyer. The buyer, therefore, does not know whether the goods are then conforming.
ACCEPTANCE -
The new car buyer accepts the goods believing and expecting that the manufacturer will repair any problem he has with the goods under the warranty.
REJECTION
-
The new car buyer may discover a problem with the vehicle within the first few miles of his purchase. This would allow the new car buyer to reject
the goods. If the new car buyer discovers a defect in the car within a reasonable time to inspect the vehicle, he may reject the vehicle. This period
is not defined. On the one hand, the buyer must be given a reasonable time to inspect and that reasonable time to inspect will be held as an acceptance
of the vehicle. The Courts will decide this reasonable time to inspect based on the knowledge and experience of the buyer, the difficulty in discovering
the defect, and the opportunity to discover the defect.
The following is an example of a case of rejection: Mr. Zabriskie purchase a new 1966 Chevrolet Biscayne. After picking up the car on Friday evening,
while en route to his home 2.5 miles away, and within 7/10ths of a mile from the dealership, the car stalled and stalled again within 15 feet. Thereafter,
the car would only drive in low gear. The buyer rejected the vehicle and stopped payment on his check. The dealer contended that the buyer could not
reject the car because he had driven it around the block and that was his reasonable opportunity to inspect. The New Jersey Court said;
To the layman,
the complicated mechanisms of today's automobile are a complete mystery. To have the automobile inspected by someone with sufficient expertise to disassemble
the vehicle in order the discover latent defects before the contract is signed, is assuredly impossible and highly impractical. Consequently, the first
few miles of driving become even more significant to the excited new car buyer. This is the buyer's first reasonable opportunity to enjoy his new vehicle
to see if it conforms to what it was represented to be and whether he is getting what he bargained for. How long the buyer may drive the new car under
the guise of inspection of new goods is not an issue in the present case because 7/10th of a mile is clearly within the ambit of a reasonable opportunity
to inspect. Zabriskie Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smith, 240 A. 2d 195(1968)
It is suggested that Courts will tend to excuse use by consumers if possible.
REVOCATION -
What happens when the consumer has used the new car for a lengthy period of time? This is the typical lemon car case. The UCC provides that a buyer
may revoke his acceptance of goods whose non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to him when he has accepted the goods without
discovery of a non-conformity because it was difficult to discover or if he was assured that non-conformities would be repaired. Of course, the average
new car buyer does not learn of the nonconformity until hundreds of thousands of miles later. And because quality is job one, and manufacturers are
competing on the basis of their warranties, the consumer always is assured that any noncomformities he does discover will be remedied.
What is a noncomformity substantially impairing the value of the vehicle?
- A noncomformity may include a number of relatively minor defects whose cumulative total adds up to a substantial impairment. This is the "Shake
Faith" Doctrine first stated in the Zabrisikie case. "For a majority of people the purchase of a new car is a major investment, rationalized
by the peace of mind that flows from its dependability and safety. Once their faith is shaken, the vehicle loses not only its real value in their eyes,
but becomes an instrument whose integrity is substantially impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension".
- A substantial noncomformity may include a failure or refusal to repair the goods under the warranty. In Durfee V. Rod Baxter Imports, the Minnesota
Court held that the Saab owner that was plagued by a series of of annoying minor defects and stalling, which were never repaired after a number of attempts,
could revoke, "if repairs are not successfully undertaken within a reasonable time", the consumer may elect to revoke.
- Substantial Non Conformity and Lemon Laws often define what may be considered a substantial impairment. These definitions have been successfully used
to flesh out the substantial impairment in the UCC.
Additional narrative information on Magnusson-Moss, UCC and lemon laws on these pages is provided by T. Michael Flinn, attorney.
|
|
|
|
 |
