 |
Lemon Law America® offers owners of defective motor vehicles resources to help them research their state's lemon law statutes, and provides links to lemon lawyers practicing in their state.
Click here for legal help for your Idaho lemon
|
|
Idaho
Lemon Law Statutes
48-901 Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, the following
terms have the following meanings:
- "Consumer" means the
purchaser or lessee, other than for
purposes of resale or sublease, of
a new motor vehicle used for personal
business use, personal, family or household
purposes, or a person to whom the new
motor vehicle is transferred for the
same purposes during the duration of
an express warranty applicable to the
motor vehicle.
- "Early termination costs" means
expenses and obligations incurred by
a motor vehicle lessor as a result
of an early termination of a written
lease agreement and surrender of a
motor vehicle to a manufacturer under
section 48-904, Idaho Code, including
penalties for prepayment of finance
arrangements.
- "Informal dispute settlement
mechanism" means an arbitration
process or procedure by which the manufacturer
attempts to resolve disputes with consumers
regarding motor vehicle nonconformities
and repairs that arise during the vehicle's
warranty period.
- "Lease" means a contract
in the form of a lease or bailment
for the use of personal property by
a natural person for a period of time
exceeding four (4) months, used for
personal business use, personal, family,
or household purposes, whether or not
the lessee has the option to purchase
or otherwise become the owner of the
property at the expiration of the lease.
- "Manufacturer" means
a person engaged in the business of
manufacturing, assembling or distributing
motor vehicles, who will, under normal
business conditions during the year,
manufacture, assemble or distribute
to dealers at least ten (10) new motor
vehicles.
- "Manufacturer's express
warranty" and "warranty" mean
the written warranty of the manufacturer
of a new motor vehicle of its condition
and fitness for use, including any
terms or conditions precedent to the
enforcement of obligations under that
warranty.
- "Motor vehicle" means
a motor vehicle as defined in chapter
1, title 49, Idaho Code, which is sold
or licensed in this state but does
not include
- Motorcycle or farm tractor as defined
in sections 49-107 and 49-114, Idaho
Code; or
- Trailer as defined in section 49-121,
Idaho Code; or
- Any motor vehicle with a gross
laden weight over twelve thousand (12,000)
pounds.
- "Motor vehicle lessor" means
a person who holds title to a motor
vehicle leased to a lessee under a
written lease agreement or who holds
the lessor's rights under such agreement.
48-902 Manufacturer's duty to repair
- Service and Repair Facilities.
- If a new motor vehicle does not
conform to all applicable express warranties,
and the consumer reports the nonconformity
to the manufacturer, its agent, or
its authorized dealer during the term
of the applicable express warranties
or during the period of two (2) years
following the date of original delivery
of the new motor vehicle to a consumer,
or during the period ending with the
date on which the mileage on the motor
vehicle reaches twenty-four thousand
(24,000) miles, whichever is the earliest
date, the manufacturer, its agent,
or its authorized dealer shall make
the repairs necessary to conform the
vehicle to the applicable express warranties,
notwithstanding the fact that the repairs
are made after the expiration of the
warranty term or the two (2) year period.
- Every manufacturer of motor vehicles
sold and for which the manufacturer
has made an express warranty shall
maintain sufficient service and repair
facilities reasonably close to all
areas in which its motor vehicles are
sold to carry out the terms of the
warranties or designate and authorize
as service and repair facilities independent
repair or service facilities reasonably
close to all areas in which its motor
vehicles are sold to carry out the
terms of the warranties. As a means
of complying with the provisions of
this subsection, a manufacturer may,
in a town or city where there is not
a franchise market representative,
enter into warranty service contracts
with independent service and repair
facilities.
48-903 Manufacturer's duty to refund
or replace.
- If the manufacturer, its agents,
or its authorized dealers are unable
to conform the new motor vehicle to
any applicable express warranty by
repairing or correcting any defect
or condition which impairs the use
or market value of the motor vehicle
to the consumer after a reasonable
number of attempts, the manufacturer
shall either replace the new motor
vehicle with a comparable motor vehicle
or accept return of the vehicle from
the consumer and refund to the consumer
the amount the consumer paid for the
vehicle, inclusive of the value of
any trade-in, not to exceed one hundred
five percent (105%) of the manufacturer's
suggested retail price of the motor
vehicle. The manufacturer's suggested
retail price shall include all manufacturer
installed options. The one hundred
five percent (105%) cap shall include
the cost of any options or other modifications
arranged, installed, or made by the
manufacturer's agent, or its authorized
dealer within thirty (30) days after
the date of original delivery. The
manufacturer shall refund to the consumer
all other charges including, but not
limited to, sales or excise tax, license
fees and registration fees, reimbursement
for towing and rental vehicle expenses
incurred by the consumer as a result
of the vehicle being out of service
for warranty repair. A reasonable allowance
for the consumer's use of the vehicle
shall be deducted from the refund to
the consumer not to exceed the number
of miles attributable to the consumer
up to the date of the arbitration hearing
multiplied by the purchase price of
the vehicle and divided by one hundred
twenty thousand (120,000). If the manufacturer
offers a replacement vehicle under
this section, the consumer has the
option of rejecting the replacement
vehicle and requiring the manufacturer
to provide a refund. Refunds must be
made to the consumer, and lien holder,
if any, as their interests appear on
the records of the division of motor
vehicles of the Idaho transportation
department. A manufacturer must give
to the consumer an itemized statement
listing each of the amounts refunded
under this section. If the amount of
sales or excise tax refunded is not
separately stated, or if the manufacturer
does not apply for a refund of the
tax within one (1) year of the return
of the motor vehicle, the state tax
commission may refund the tax, as determined
under subsection (8) of this section,
directly to the consumer and lien holder,
if any, as their interests appear on
the records of the division of motor
vehicles. It is an affirmative defense
to any claim under this chapter
(a) that an alleged nonconformity does
not impair the use or market value,
or
(b) that a nonconformity is the result
of abuse, neglect, or unauthorized
modifications or alterations of a motor
vehicle by anyone other than the manufacturer,
its agent or its authorized dealer.
- It is presumed that a reasonable
number of attempts have been undertaken
to conform a new motor vehicle to the
applicable express warranties, if
(a) the same nonconformity has been
subject to repair four (4) or more
times by the manufacturer, its agents,
or its authorized dealers within the
applicable express warranty term or
during the period of two (2) years
following the date of original delivery
of the new motor vehicle to a consumer
or during the period ending with the
date on which the mileage on the motor
vehicle reaches twenty-four thousand
(24,000) miles, whichever is the earliest
date, but the nonconformity continues
to exist. However, the manufacturer
shall have at least one (1) opportunity
to attempt to repair the vehicle before
it is presumed a reasonable number
of attempts have been undertaken to
conform the vehicle to the applicable
express warranty; or
(b) the vehicle is out of service by
reason of repair for a cumulative total
of thirty (30) or more business days
during the term or during the period,
whichever is the earlier date.
- If the nonconformity results
in a complete failure of the braking
or
steering system of the new motor vehicle
and is likely to cause death or serious
bodily injury if the vehicle is driven,
it is presumed that a reasonable number
of attempts have been undertaken to
conform the vehicle to the applicable
express warranties if the nonconformity
has been subject to repair at least
once by the manufacturer, its agents,
or its authorized dealers within the
applicable express warranty term or
during the period of two (2) years
following the date of original delivery
of the new motor vehicle to a consumer
or during the period ending with the
date on which the mileage on the motor
vehicle reaches twenty-four thousand
(24,000) miles, whichever is the earliest
date, and the nonconformity continues
to exist. However, the manufacturer
shall have at least one (1) opportunity
to attempt to repair the vehicle before
it is presumed a reasonable number
of attempts have been undertaken to
conform the vehicle to the applicable
express warranty.
- The term of an applicable express
warranty, the two (2) year period and
the thirty (30) day period shall be
extended by any period of time during
which repair services are not available
to the consumer because of a war, invasion,
strike, or fire, flood, or other natural
disaster.
- The presumption contained in
subsection (2) of this section applies
against
a manufacturer only if the manufacturer,
its agent, or its authorized dealer
has received prior written notification
from or on behalf of the consumer at
least once and an opportunity to cure
the defect alleged. If the notification
is received by the manufacturer's agent
or authorized dealer, the agent or
dealer must forward it to the manufacturer
by certified mail, return receipt requested.
However, if the manufacturer is not
notified either by the consumer or
the manufacturer's agent or authorized
dealer, then the manufacturer shall
have at least one (1) opportunity to
cure the alleged defect.
- The expiration of the time periods
set forth in subsection (2) of this
section does not bar a consumer from
receiving a refund or replacement vehicle
under subsection (1) of this section
if the reasonable number of attempts
to correct the nonconformity causing
the substantial impairment occur within
three (3) years following the date
of original delivery of the new motor
vehicle to a consumer, provided the
consumer first reported the nonconformity
to the manufacturer, its agent, or
its authorized dealer during the term
of the applicable express warranty.
- The manufacturer shall provide
to its agent or authorized dealer and,
at the time of purchase or lease, the
manufacturer's agent or authorized
dealer shall provide a written statement
to the consumer in the new motor vehicle
warranty guide, in 10-point all capital
type, in substantially the following
form:
" IMPORTANT IF THIS VEHICLE IS DEFECTIVE, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED
UNDER THE STATE'S LEMON LAW TO REPLACEMENT OF IT OR A REFUND
OF ITS PURCHASE PRICE OR YOUR LEASE PAYMENTS. HOWEVER, TO BE
ENTITLED TO REFUND OR REPLACEMENT, YOU MUST FIRST NOTIFY THE
MANUFACTURER, ITS AGENT, OR ITS AUTHORIZED DEALER OF THE PROBLEM
IN WRITING AND GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE.
YOU ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO SUBMIT YOUR CASE TO THE CONSUMER ARBITRATION
PROGRAM WHICH THE MANUFACTURER MUST OFFER IN THIS STATE."
- The amount of the sales or excise
tax to be paid by the manufacturer
to the consumer under subsection (1)
of this section shall be the tax paid
by the consumer when the vehicle was
purchased less an amount equal to the
tax paid multiplied by a fraction,
the denominator of which is the purchase
price of the vehicle and the numerator
of which is the allowance deducted
from the refund for the consumer's
use of the vehicle.
48-904 Manufacturer's duty to consumers
with leased vehicles.
A consumer who leases a new motor vehicle
has the same rights against the manufacturer
under this section as a consumer who
purchases a new motor vehicle, except
that, if it is determined that the
manufacturer must accept return of
the consumer's leased vehicle pursuant
to section 48-903, Idaho Code, then
the consumer lessee is not entitled
to a replacement vehicle, but is entitled
only to a refund as provided in this
section. In such a case, the consumer's
leased vehicle shall be returned to
the manufacturer and the consumer's
written lease with the motor vehicle
lessor must be terminated after all
charges are settled. The manufacturer
shall provide the consumer with a full
refund of all costs and charges described
below less a reasonable allowance for
use. The manufacturer shall provide
to the consumer a refund of the pro
rata amount of any down payment paid
by the consumer on the written lease.
The pro rata amount of such a refund
shall be the amount of the down payment
divided by the number of months of
the lease agreement and that amount
multiplied by the number of months
remaining after the date of the arbitration.
The manufacturer shall also refund
to the consumer amounts identified
as additional charges set forth in
section 48-903, Idaho Code, if actually
paid by the consumer. The reasonable
allowance for use shall be the lease
payments made by the consumer until
the time of the award of a refund.
The manufacturer shall provide the
motor vehicle lessor or its assignee
with a full refund of the early termination
charges plus the residual value of
the vehicle, as specified in the lease
agreement. The amount of any refund
by the manufacturer to the consumer
for the pro rata portion of the down
payment plus the amount of the refund
to the motor vehicle lessor or its
assignee by the manufacturer shall
not exceed one hundred five percent
(105%) of the vehicle's original manufacturer's
suggested retail price.
48-905 Resale or re-lease of returned
motor vehicle.
- If a motor vehicle has been returned
under the provisions of section 48-903,
Idaho Code, 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 or re-leased in
this state unless:
- The manufacturer provides the same
express warranty it provided to the
original purchaser, except that the
term of the warranty need only last
for twelve thousand (12,000) miles
or twelve (12) months after the date
of resale, whichever is earlier; and
- The manufacturer provides the consumer
with a written statement on a separate
piece of paper, in 10-point all capital
type, in substantially the following
form "IMPORTANT THIS VEHICLE WAS
RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE
IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURER'S
EXPRESS WARRANTY AND THE NONCONFORMITY
WAS NOT CURED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
AS PROVIDED BY IDAHO LAW."
The provisions of this chapter apply
to the resold or re-leased motor vehicle
for full term of the warranty required
under this section. If a manufacturer
has a program similar to the requirements
of this subsection and that program
provides, at a minimum, substantially
the same protections for subsequent
consumers, then the manufacturer shall
be considered to be in compliance with
this subsection.
- Notwithstanding the provisions
of subsection (1) of this section,
if a new motor vehicle has been returned
under the provisions of section 48-903,
Idaho Code, or a similar statute of
another state because of a nonconformity
resulting in a complete failure of
the braking or steering system of the
motor vehicle likely to cause death
or serious bodily injury if the vehicle
was driven and the failure has not
been repaired by the manufacturer,
its agent or its authorized dealer,
the motor vehicle may not be resold
in this state.
48-906 Alternative dispute settlement
mechanism.
- Any manufacturer doing business
in this state, entering into franchise
agreements for the sale of its motor
vehicles in this state, or offering
express warranties on its motor vehicles
sold or distributed for sale in this
state shall operate, or participate
in, an informal dispute settlement
mechanism located in the state of Idaho
which complies with the provisions
of title 16, code of federal regulations,
part 703, and the requirements of this
section. The provisions of section
48-903, Idaho Code, concerning refunds
or replacement do not apply to a consumer
who has not first used this mechanism
before commencing a civil action, unless
the manufacturer allows a consumer
to commence an action without first
using this mechanism.
- An informal dispute settlement
mechanism provided for by this chapter
shall, at the time a request for arbitration
is made, provide to the consumer and
to each person who will arbitrate the
consumer's dispute, information about
this chapter as approved and directed
by the attorney general, in consultation
with interested parties. The informal
dispute settlement mechanism shall
permit the parties to present or submit
any arguments based on this chapter
and shall not prohibit or discourage
the consideration of any such arguments.
- If, in an informal dispute settlement
mechanism, it is decided that a consumer
is entitled to a replacement vehicle
or refund under section 48-903, Idaho
Code, then any refund or replacement
offered by the manufacturer or selected
by a consumer shall include and itemize
all amounts authorized by section 48-903,
Idaho Code. If the amount of excise
tax refunded is not separately stated,
or if the manufacturer does not apply
for a refund of the tax within one
(1) year of the return of the motor
vehicle, the state tax commission may
refund the sales tax, as determined
under subsection (8) of section 48-903,
Idaho Code, directly to the consumer
and lien holder, if any, as their interests
appear on the records of the division
of motor vehicles of the Idaho transportation
department.
- No documents shall be received
by any informal dispute settlement
mechanism unless those documents have
been provided to each of the parties
in the dispute at or prior to the mechanism's
meeting, with an opportunity for the
parties to comment on the documents
either in writing or orally. If a consumer
is present during the informal dispute
settlement mechanism's meeting, the
consumer may request postponement of
the mechanism's meeting to allow sufficient
time to review any documents presented
at the time of the meeting which had
not been presented to the consumer
prior to the meeting.
- The informal dispute settlement
mechanism shall allow each party to
appear and make an oral presentation
in the state of Idaho unless the consumer
agrees to submit the dispute for decision
on the basis of documents alone or
by telephone, or unless the party fails
to appear for an oral presentation
after reasonable prior written notice.
However, the manufacturer or its representative
may participate in the informal dispute
settlement mechanism's meeting by telephone
if it chooses. If the consumer agrees
to submit the dispute for decision
on the basis of documents alone, then
manufacturer or dealer representatives
may not participate in the discussion
or decision of the dispute.
- Consumers shall be given an adequate
opportunity to contest a manufacturer's
assertion that a nonconformity falls
within intended specifications for
the vehicle by having the basis of
the manufacturer's claim appraised
by a technical expert selected and
paid for by the consumer prior to the
informal dispute settlement hearing.
- Where there has been a recent attempt
by the manufacturer to repair a consumer's
vehicle, but no response has yet been
received by the informal dispute mechanism
from the consumer as to whether the
repairs were successfully completed,
the parties must be given the opportunity
to present any additional information
regarding the manufacturer's recent
repair attempt before any final decision
is rendered by the informal dispute
settlement mechanism. This provision
shall not prejudice a consumer's rights
under this chapter.
- If the manufacturer knows that
a technical service bulletin directly
applies to the specific mechanical
problem being disputed by the consumer,
then the manufacturer shall provide
the technical service bulletin to the
consumer at reasonable cost upon request.
The mechanism shall review any such
technical service bulletins submitted
by either party.
- A consumer may be charged a fee
to participate in an informal dispute
settlement mechanism required by this
chapter, but the fee may not exceed
the conciliation court filing fee in
the county where the arbitration is
conducted.
- Any party to the dispute has the
right to be represented by an attorney
in an informal dispute settlement mechanism.
- The informal dispute settlement
mechanism has all the evidence-gathering
powers granted an arbitrator under
the uniform arbitration act.
- A decision issued in an informal
dispute settlement mechanism required
by this section may be in writing and
signed.
48-907 Effect and admissibility
of decision by informal dispute settlement
mechanism.
The decision issued in an informal
dispute settlement mechanism required
by this chapter is non-binding on the
parties involved, unless otherwise
agreed by the parties. Any party, upon
application, may remove the decision
to district court for a trial de novo.
If the manufacturer is aggrieved by
the decision of the informal dispute
settlement mechanism, an application
to remove the decision must be filed
in the district court within thirty
(30) days after the date the decision
is received by the parties. If the
application to remove is not made within
thirty (30) days, then the district
court shall, upon application of a
party, issue an order confirming the
decision. A written decision issued
by an informal dispute settlement mechanism,
and any written findings upon which
the decision is based, are admissible
as non-binding evidence in any subsequent
legal action and are not subject to
further foundation requirements.
48-908 Treble damages for bad faith
appeal of decision.
If the district court finds that a
party has removed a decision of an
informal dispute settlement mechanism
in bad faith, by asserting a claim
or defense that is frivolous and costly
to the other party, or by asserting
an unfounded position solely to delay
recovery by the other party, then the
court shall award to the prevailing
party three (3) times the actual damages
sustained, together with costs and
attorney's fees.
48-909 Civil remedy.
Any consumer injured by a violation
of this chapter may bring a civil action
to enforce this chapter and recover
costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorney's fees incurred
in the civil action. However, the provisions
of this section do not include recovery
of attorney's fees previously incurred
in the course of informal dispute resolution.
In addition to the remedies provided
herein, the attorney general may, when
in the public interest, bring an action
pursuant to the Idaho consumer protection
act, chapter 6, title 48, Idaho Code,
against any manufacturer for violation
of this chapter. For purposes of such
action, violations of this chapter
shall be deemed to be violations of
Idaho's consumer protection act. In
any such action, the attorney general
and district court shall have the same
authority as is granted the attorney
general and district court under the
Idaho consumer protection act.
48-910 Limitations on actions.
A civil action brought under this chapter
must be commenced within three (3)
years of the date of original delivery
of the new motor vehicle to a consumer,
except that if the consumer applies
to an informal dispute settlement mechanism
within three (3) years of the date
of original delivery of the new motor
vehicle to a consumer, and if the consumer
is aggrieved by the decision of the
informal dispute settlement mechanism,
then any appeal of that decision brought
under this chapter must be commenced
within three (3) months after the date
of the final decision by the mechanism.
48-911 Remedy nonexclusive.
Nothing in this chapter limits the
rights or remedies which are otherwise
available to a consumer under any other
law.
48-912 Disclosure requirement.
In addition to any investigative powers
authorized by law, the attorney general
may inspect the records of the informal
dispute settlement mechanism upon reasonable
notice, during regular business hours,
and may make available to the public
information about the operation of
the mechanism, but data on an individual
case may not be disclosed without the
prior consent of the affected parties.
48-913 Dealer liability.
Nothing in this chapter imposes liability
on a dealer or creates an additional
cause of action by a consumer against
a dealer, except for written express
warranties made by the dealer apart
from the manufacturer's warranties.
The manufacturer shall not charge back
or require reimbursement by the dealer
for any costs, including, but not limited
to, any refunds or vehicle replacements,
incurred by the manufacturer arising
out of this chapter, unless there is
evidence that the related repairs had
not been carried out by the dealer
in a timely manner or in a manner substantially
consistent with the manufacturer's
published instructions. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
 |