 |
|
|
Wisconsin
Lemon Law Statutes
Chapter
218.015
- 218.015(1) (intro.) In this section:
- 218.015(1)(a) "Collateral costs" means expenses
incurred by a consumer in connection with the repair of a nonconformity,
including the costs of obtaining alternative transportation.
- 218.015(1)(b) (intro.) "Consumer" means any
of the following:
- 218.015(1)(b)1. The purchaser of a new motor vehicle,
if the motor vehicle was purchased from a motor vehicle dealer
for purposes other than resale.
- 218.015(1)(b)2. A person to whom the motor vehicle
is transferred for purposes other than resale, if the transfer
occurs
before the expiration of an express warranty applicable to the
motor vehicle.
- 218.015(1)(b)3. A person who may enforce the warranty.
- 218.015(1)(b)4. A person who leases a motor vehicle
from
a motor vehicle lessor under a written lease.
218.015(1)(bd) (bd) "Demonstrator" means used primarily
for the purpose of demonstration to the public.
218.015(1)(bg) (bg) "Early termination cost" means
any expense or obligation a motor vehicle lessor incurs as a
result of both the termination of a written lease before the
termination date set forth in that lease and the return of a
motor vehicle to a manufacturer under sub. (2) (b) 3. "Early
termination cost" includes a penalty for prepayment under
a finance arrangement.
218.015(1)(bj) (bj) "Early termination savings" means
any expense or obligation a motor vehicle lessor avoids as a
result of both the termination of a written lease before the
termination date set forth in that lease and the return of a
motor vehicle to a manufacturer under sub. (2) (b) 3. "Early
termination savings" includes an interest charge the motor
vehicle lessor would have paid to finance the motor vehicle or,
if the motor vehicle lessor does not finance the motor vehicle,
the difference between the total amount for which the lease obligates
the consumer during the period of the lease term remaining after
the early termination and the present value of that amount at
the date of the early termination.
218.015(1)(bp) (bp) "Executive" means used primarily
by an executive of a licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer,
and not used for demonstration to the public.
- 218.015(1)(c)"Manufacturer" means a manufacturer
as defined in s. 218.01 (1) (L) and agents of the manufacturer,
including an importer, a distributor, factory branch, distributor
branch and any warrantors of the manufacturer's motor vehicles,
but not including a motor vehicle dealer.
- 218.015(1)(d) "Motor vehicle" means any motor
driven vehicle required to be registered under ch. 341 or exempt
from registration under s. 341.05 (2), including a demonstrator
or executive vehicle not titled or titled by a manufacturer or
a motor vehicle dealer, which a consumer purchases or accepts
transfer of in this state. "Motor vehicle" does not
mean a moped, semitrailer or trailer designed for use in combination
with a truck or truck tractor.
- 218.015(1)(e) "Motor vehicle dealer" has
the
meaning given under s. 218.01 (1) (n).
218.015(1)(em) (em) "Motor vehicle lessor" means
a person who holds title to a motor vehicle leased to a lessee,
or who holds the lessor's rights, under a written lease.
- 218.015(1)(f) "Nonconformity" means a condition
or defect which substantially impairs the use, value or safety
of a motor vehicle, and is covered by an express warranty applicable
to the motor vehicle or to a component of the motor vehicle,
but does not include a condition or defect which is the result
of abuse, neglect or unauthorized modification or alteration
of the motor vehicle by a consumer.
- 218.015(1)(h) (intro.) "Reasonable attempt to
repair" means
any of the following occurring within the term of an express
warranty applicable to a new motor vehicle or within one year
after first delivery of the motor vehicle to a consumer, whichever
is sooner:
- 218.015(1)(h)1. The same nonconformity with the warranty
is subject to repair by the manufacturer, motor vehicle lessor
or any of the manufacturer's authorized motor vehicle dealers
at least 4 times and the nonconformity continues.
- 218.015(1)(h)2. The motor vehicle is out of service
for
an aggregate of at least 30 days because of warranty nonconformities.
- 218.015(2)
- 218.015(2)(a) If a new motor vehicle does not conform
to an applicable express warranty and the consumer reports the
nonconformity to the manufacturer, the motor vehicle lessor or
any of the manufacturer's authorized motor vehicle dealers and
makes the motor vehicle available for repair before the expiration
of the warranty or one year after first delivery of the motor
vehicle to a consumer, whichever is sooner, the nonconformity
shall be repaired.
- 218.015(2)(b)
- 218.015(2)(b)1. If after a reasonable attempt to
repair the nonconformity is not repaired, the manufacturer
shall carry
out the requirement under subd. 2. or 3., whichever is appropriate.
- 218.015(2)(b)2. (intro.) At the direction of a consumer
described under sub. (1) (b) 1., 2. or 3., do one of the following:
- 218.015(2)(b)2.a. Accept return of the motor vehicle
and
replace the motor vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle
and refund any collateral costs.
- 218.015(2)(b)2.b. Accept return of the motor vehicle
and
refund to the consumer and to any holder of a perfected security
interest in the consumer's motor vehicle, as their interest may
appear, the full purchase price plus any sales tax, finance charge,
amount paid by the consumer at the point of sale and collateral
costs, less a reasonable allowance for use. Under this subdivision,
a reasonable allowance for use may not exceed the amount obtained
by multiplying the full purchase price of the motor vehicle by
a fraction, the denominator of which is 100,000 or, for a motorcycle,
20,000, and the numerator of which is the number of miles the
motor vehicle was driven before the consumer first reported the
nonconformity to the motor vehicle dealer.
- 218.015(2)(b)3.
- 218.015(2)(b)3.a. With respect to a consumer described
in sub. (1) (b) 4., accept return of the motor vehicle, refund
to the motor vehicle lessor and to any holder of a perfected
security interest in the motor vehicle, as their interest may
appear, the current value of the written lease and refund to
the consumer the amount the consumer paid under the written lease
plus any sales tax and collateral costs, less a reasonable allowance
for use.
- 218.015(2)(b)3.b. Under this subdivision, the current
value of the written lease equals the total amount for which
that lease obligates the consumer during the period of the lease
remaining after its early termination, plus the motor vehicle
dealer's early termination costs and the value of the motor vehicle
at the lease expiration date if the lease sets forth that value,
less the motor vehicle lessor's early termination savings.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
 |
