Lemon law landmark cases
Ever since the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act was enacted way back in 1975, there have been several judicial decisions made that have shaped the general direction of the lemon law legislation in the United States. Here is a brief digest of the major ones.
Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 692 N.W.2d 226, 2005-1
In the above case, a Wisconsin consumer brought a case against a car maker under the Inc Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, claiming a breach of warranty. After filing the case, the consumer traded-in the vehicle. In dismissing her case, the trial court was heavily influenced by the amount of money the consumer received for the trade-in. she appealed to the court of Appeals which reversed the trial’s court decision and remanded the case.
The review was granted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, where it held that even if the buyer/consumer resold the vehicle for more than its fair value, coupled by the allegation that the consumer drove the vehicle intensively before re-selling it did not in any way preclude her from seeking damages for the breach of the warranty.
Hyundai Motors America v. Goodin-804 N.E.2d 775, 784, 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)
In this case, an Indiana consumer brought an action against the manufacturer under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for breach of an implied warranty. The court decided in the consumer’s favour, at which point the manufacturer appealed. The court of Appeals reversed the decision of the jury, and held that the consumer lacked the “privity” of a direct contractual relationship with the manufacturer to bring such claim.
The Indiana Supreme court, which granted the review, reinstated the decision of the jury, saying that the consumer may bring civil action against a manufacturer for economic loss even on an implied warranty even if the consumer bought the product from an intermediary in the chain of distribution. Thus the traditional requirement for privity of contract was abolished.
Lara v. Hyundai Motor America, 331 Ill. App. 3d 53, 770 N.E.2d 721, 264 Ill. Dec. 416, 47 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1379, Ill. App. 2 Dist., May 29, 2002
An Illinois car buyer brought a civil action against a car maker for a breach of warranty after the consumer had surrendered the car buyer to his lender. The court, in granting a summary judgment held that the consumer’s inability to return the vehicle to the car maker free of lien precluded his claim for bleach of written warranty under the Act and that the defendant disclaimer did not help the consumer’s case.
The consumer appealed, and the Illinois court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order finding that under the relevant Act, the buyer was not obligated to return the car as a condition before he could bring civil action for breach of an express warranty, and that because facts disclosed that the manufacturer’s warranty was not effective and failed its essential purpose, the manufacturer’s disclaimer of consequential damages was not absolute.
Paige v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., S.E.2d, 2005 WL 22962, Ga. App., Jan 06, 2005
Several consumers from Georgia brought civil action against a car maker for breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court granted summary judgement in favour of the car maker for failure on the part of the plaintiffs to participate in the manufacturer’s informal dispute resolution mechanism. The decision was reversed n appeal on the grounds that customers are not obligated to participate in such mechanisms.
References
- http://www.krohnandmoss.com/landmarkdecisions/index.htm
- SupremeCourt/2006/June/Opinions/Html/98813.htm
- www.zoominfo.com/people/Cohen_Scott_3235875.aspx