 |
|
|
Oklahoma
Lemon Law Statutes
§15-901.
- As used in this act:
- 1. "Consumer" means the purchaser, other than
for purposes of resale, of a motor vehicle, any person to
whom such motor vehicle is transferred during the duration
of an express warranty applicable to such motor vehicle,
and any other person entitled by the terms of such warranty
to enforce the obligations of the warranty; and
- 2."Motor vehicle" means any motor-driven vehicle
required to be registered under the Motor Vehicle License
and Registration Act, Sections 22 et seq. of Title 47 of
the Oklahoma Statutes, excluding vehicles above ten thousand
(10,000) pounds gross vehicle weight and the living facilities
of motor homes.
- For the purposes of this act, if a new motor vehicle does
not conform to all applicable express warranties, and the consumer
reports the nonconformity, directly in writing, to the manufacturer,
its agent or its authorized dealer during the term of such express
warranties or during the period of one (1) year following the
date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to a consumer,
whichever is the earlier date, the manufacturer, its agent or
its authorized dealer shall make such repairs as are necessary
to conform the vehicle to such express warranties, notwithstanding
the fact that such repairs are made after the expiration of such
term or such one-year period.
- If the manufacturer, or its agents or authorized dealers are
unable to conform the motor vehicle to any applicable express
warranty by repairing or correcting any defect or condition which
substantially impairs the use and value of the motor vehicle
to the consumer after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer
shall replace the motor vehicle with a new motor vehicle or accept
return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the consumer
the full purchase price including all taxes, license, registration
fees and all similar governmental fees, excluding interest, less
a reasonable allowance for the consumer's use of the vehicle.
Refunds shall be made to the consumer, and lienholder if any,
as their interests may appear. A reasonable allowance for use
shall be that amount directly attributable to use by the consumer
prior to his first written report of the nonconformity to the
manufacturer, agent or dealer and during any subsequent period
when the vehicle is not out of service by reason of repair. It
shall be an affirmative defense to any claim under this act
-
that an alleged nonconformity does not substantially impair such
use and value or
- that a nonconformity is the result of abuse,
neglect or unauthorized modifications or alterations of a motor
vehicle.
In no event shall the presumption described in this
subsection apply against a manufacturer unless the manufacturer
has received prior direct written notification from or on behalf
of the consumer and has had an opportunity to cure the defect
alleged.
- It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts
have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to the applicable
express warranties, if
- the same nonconformity has been subject
to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents
or authorized dealers within the express warranty term or during
the period of one (1) year following the date of original delivery
of the motor vehicle to a consumer, whichever is the earlier
date, but such nonconformity continues to exist or
- the vehicle
is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total
of forty-five (45) or more calendar days during such term or
during such period, whichever is the earlier date. The term of
an express warranty, such one-year period and such forty-five-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.
- Nothing in this act shall in any way limit the rights or remedies
which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law.
- If a manufacturer has established an informal dispute settlement
procedure which complies in all respects with the provisions
of Title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 703, as from time
to time amended, the provisions of subsection C of this section
concerning refunds or replacement shall not apply to any consumer
who has not first resorted to such procedure.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
 |
