|
California Lemon Law Summary |
| |
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 1790-1795.7; Tanner Consumer Protection Act, §1793.22; Cal. Business and Professions Code §§472-472.5; 16 Cal. Code of Regs. §§3396.1-3399.6
California Lemon Law covers:
- A new motor vehicle
- The chassis cab of a motor home
- A dealer owned vehicle
- A demonstrator vehicle
California Lemon Law covers a vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty
- Used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes
- Has a gross vehicle weight under 10,000 pounds
- Bought or used primarily for business purposes by any person or business to which at least one but not more than five motor vehicles are registered in California
The motor vehicle must have been:
- Originally purchased or leased at retail in California
- Purchased or leased by a full-time active duty member of the Armed Forces who is stationed or is residing in California at the time of purchase or lease
The lemon law does not cover:
- Any portion of a motor home designed, used or maintained primarily for human habitation
- Motor vehicle that is not registered under the Vehicle Code because it is to be operated or used exclusively off the highways
Nonconformity defined:
- A "nonconformity" is defined by the Tanner Act as a defect that substantially impairs the use, market value, or safety of the motor vehicle
- A "nonconformity" is defined by the Certification Regulations as any defect, malfunction or failure to conform to the written warranty
- A "substantial nonconformity" is any defect, malfunction or failure to conform to the written warranty that substantially impairs the use, value or safety of the new motor vehicle
Warranty defined:
An "express warranty" is defined by Song-Beverly as a
- Written statement arising out of a sale of a consumer good pursuant to which the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer undertakes to reserve or maintain the utility or performance of the consumer good or provide compensation to the consumer if there is a failure in utility or performance
A "written warranty" is defined by Certification Regulations as
- Any written affirmation of fact or written promise made by a manufacturer to a consumer in connection with the sale or lease of a new motor vehicle
- That relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is defect-free or will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time
- Any undertaking in writing made by a manufacturer to a consumer in connection with the sale or lease of a new motor vehicle to refund, repair, replace, or take other remedial action with respect to the vehicle
In the event that the vehicle fails to meet the specifications set forth in the undertaking, the written affirmation, promise or undertaking becomes part of the basis of the bargain.
Unless properly disclaimed, every sale of consumer goods at retail in California is accompanied by the manufacturers and retail seller's implied warranty that the goods are merchantable.
Lemon law rights period: Song-Beverly does not specifically define a "lemon law rights period," but applies to the entire manufacturer's written warranty.
Manufacturer's obligation to repair:
- Where service or repair of the goods is necessary because they do not conform to the applicable express warranties, service and repair must be commenced within a reasonable time by the manufacturer or its representative
- Unless the consumer agrees in writing to the contrary, the goods must be serviced within 30 days
- Written notice of nonconformity to the manufacturer or its service and repair facility constitutes return of the goods
Manufacturer's obligation to repurchase or replace: If the manufacturer or its representative is unable to service or repair a new motor vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer must
- Either promptly replace or repurchase the motor vehicle
The manufacturer must be provided more than one attempt to repair the nonconformity, and each occasion that an opportunity for repairs is provided counts as an attempt, even if no repairs are actually undertaken.
- The consumer is free to elect repurchase in lieu of replacement
- In no event may the manufacturer require a consumer to accept a replacement vehicle
Criteria for reasonable number of repair attempts; presumed if, within 18 months after delivery to the consumer or 18,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurs first:
- The same nonconformity results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven, and the nonconformity has been subject to repair two or more times, and the consumer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for repair
- The same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times and the consumer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for repair
- The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of nonconformities for more than 30 calendar days since delivery
Notice of nonconformity and final opportunity to repair: The consumer is required to directly notify the manufacturer pursuant to the first two parts of the presumption only if the manufacturer has clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer, in the warranty or owner's manual, the provisions of the lemon law and the direct notice requirement.
Refund of an owned vehicle consists of:
- Purchase price: The actual price paid for the vehicle, including any charges for transportation and manufacturer -installed options
- Collateral charges: Official fees associated with the sale of the vehicle, including sales tax, license fees, finance interest charges, and registration fees
- Incidental damages: Reasonable expenses incident to the vehicle problem for which the manufacturer is repurchasing the vehicle
- Less a reasonable offset for use and a reasonable offset for physical damage to the vehicle
Replacement: The replacement vehicle must be new and substantially identical to the vehicle replaced. The replacement vehicle must be accompanied by all express and implied warranties that normally accompany new motor vehicles of the kind.
- Refund of sales tax: The manufacturer refunds sales tax to the consumer
- Attorney's fees: A consumer who prevails in an action under Song-Beverly must be allowed by the court to recover costs and expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the consumer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of the action
This information is not intended as legal advice. Please direct your specific questions to Krohn & Moss Consumer Law Center® for protection involving defective vehicles (Lemon Law), Products (Warranty Law), Consumer Fraud, Violations of Renters Rights, Credit Report discrepancies and lenders and creditors discrepancies. If you think your consumer rights have been violated and you need legal help, call Krohn & Moss attorneys, toll free, at 1-800 US LEMON® (800-875-3666) for a FREE CASE REVIEW, or complete one of our online submission forms.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
| Testimonial |
We would like to heartily thank you for the excellent counsel given to us by attorney Todd M. Friedman. Within an hour of posting our problem to the Lemon Law website, he contacted us and told us what we needed to do to file a successful claim against Chevrolet.
Barbara and Michael C.
I could not have fought this California lemon law suit without you - Manning Arron, California.
Hi Agnes,
Thank you for all of your hard work and determination through this long endeavor. Your efforts have been deeply received by me and please accept my heartfelt gratitude for all of your support. All of the legal staff at your offices has been very professional through this entire process and though I would have liked to see this case play out a bit differently to even make it this far is a tribute to you. Your staff has always been diligently standing by supporting my decisions when I felt the battle must be won, and educating me when the process staggered the mind. Either way the legal process as I have learned is fraught with stress, hardships, and fatigue. To know that you championed the cause as much as I, one could not ask for more. Adding to that your fee reduction, allowing me to walk away with my head up high not only shows your professionalism but also shows to your morale character. This is a rare sight to see and will not go unnoticed by all who work with you. Thank you again for everything, I could not have fought this battle without you.
Sincerely,
Arron Manning.
THANK YOU for all your hard work for winning our California lemon law suit !! - Barak Zahian, California.
Hi Heather,
I just wanted to congratulate you on the success of this case and THANK YOU for all your hard work!! You are by far the most competent, intelligent, caring, and hard working attorney that I have spoken to, from your firm. I only wish you were assigned to this California lemon law case earlier on.
Many thanks for your hard work and I will certainly recommend YOU to friends and family in the future.
If I knew the name of your supervisor or manager, I would have emailed this letter to him/her.
Sincerely,
Thanks again,
Zaki Barak.
Thank you for hard work with our California lemon law suit against Ford Motor Company
-Raymond & Kathy Johnson, California.Agnes,
Thank you and the team at Krohn & Moss Law Center® for the hard work with our California lemon law suit against Ford Motor Company. If the time arises and any of my family or friend need the kind of legal needs I will refer them to the Krohn & Moss Law Center® team
Raymond & Kathy Johnson.
Thank you for getting the best and fairest deal from GM through our California lemon law suit - Kurt Hayward, California.
Agnes,
I just want to thank you for all that you and your company where able to do for me in the battle with GM over my 2005 Chevrolet Colorado through the California lemon law. Your customer service and professionalism is at the top and I am glad that I had you and your company on my side. Thank you again for taking the time and all of the hard work that you put in to ensure that I was getting the best and fairest deal from GM.
Best regards,
Kurt Hayward.
Hinchen v. Ford Motor Company and Fritts Ford.
Ms. Hinchen leased a new 2003 Ford Explorer from Fritts Ford on January 15, 2003. The gross capitalized cost of the vehicle was $45,292.52. Shortly after leasing the vehicle, she began to experience electrical problems, including an inoperable trip meter, the gas gauge registering incorrectly, illumination of a tire fault lamp, inoperable windows and an inoperable message center. She first returned to Ford’s authorized dealerships for her concerns with the electrical system in July 2003 when the vehicle had 13,416 miles on it. Despite repeated repair attempts by Ford’s dealers, Ms. Hinchen was required to return to the dealers on twelve separate occasions for these electrical problems. The case proceeded to jury trial in January 2005 in San Bernardino County. The Defendant, Ford Motor Company, contended that a non-party Ford Dealership installed the wrong instrument cluster on Ms. Hinchen’s first trip to the dealership in July 2003 which caused her continuing electrical problems. Ford further argued that the electrical problems present in the vehicle were corrected and repaired after the correct instrument cluster was put in the vehicle. The jury awarded Ms. Hinchen $15,312.10 and allowed her to keep the vehicle until the end of the lease.
|
 |
|
