Lemon Law for California

In the Lemon Law, the concept of substantial impairment to the use, value or safety of your vehicle is one of the basic tests that determine the validity of a case. Obviously the consumer’s viewpoint of what is substantial and what the manufacturer considers substantial is very different. It is our business to ensure that when the consumer’s car engine dies on the freeway during rush hour it isn’t treated the same as a broken cup holder. In this engine dying on the freeway example all three criteria are substantially impaired.

That’s an easy one.
It’s bad enough that your new car, motor home or boat loses 10% of its value immediately after you drive it away from the dealership. I want to put a number on this so you’ll really feel the pain. I know it’s mean; sorry about that. If you paid $50,000 dollars for your car it’s only worth $45,000 when you arrive home after you sign the contract. This being the case, anything that further impairs the value is going to get your attention big time.

Let’s take a quick look at use. You buy a car to get from one place to another as efficiently as the roads and highways permit. The engine should have sufficient strength to get you up your driveway without stalling. All of the essential components of the vehicle must do what their supposed to do. All of the bells and whistles bell and whistle. You can look at the moon when its there to be seen—if the moon roof doesn’t get stuck halfway. You can navigate around the world if the software doesn’t drop a digit and tell you you’re in Kansas with Dorothy and Toto instead of downtown Pasadena—where you really are. To put a point on it, a car’s purpose is first to provide safe, reliable transportation. If you can’t use it to get from home to work and back it doesn’t qualify as useful.

How about value? This is easy, although the manufacturers usually have a different yardstick. Who knew? You’ve had your new truck for a month and notice bubble spots appearing beneath the paint. They don’t have to be huge open flakes. You can see them and so can your friends and relatives. Maybe they are polite and don’t ask you why you don’t wash the truck. The basic fact is that if you decided you wanted to sell your new truck and buy something else, you’re going to take a serious hit on value. You ask for the Blue Book price and a potential buyer says, “Huh? Dude…what about these blotches in the paint?” What are you going to say? If you take it back to the dealer to be repainted, you know there is no way it is going to be like new. Acme Paint & Body, the dealership’s body shop hasn’t the tools, paints or environment to duplicate the paint job it was supposed to have received at the factory. You don’t want it. It’s not what you thought you were buying. It is substantially reduced in value.

Now let’s look at safety. It seems as though it should be fairly cut and dried. It’s not. Few things in the law are as simple as they should be. There ought to be an adrenaline test. For example, if your vehicle through a failure to do something it was designed to do—like stop quickly in a straight line—puts you in a situation where your heart rate shoots up like a loan shark’s interest rate, that situation should be declared unsafe. Okay, that’s bit whimsical and the manufacturer’s defense might argue that you shouldn’t have been looking at the pretty girl on the street corner. (For the guys, of course) However, if you are on the freeway and traffic suddenly begins to slow, and you hit the brakes and your foot goes to the floor, this is impaired safety. The same could be said of constant SRS (Safety Restraint System) problems. When the warning light comes on and the folks at the dealership tell you nothing is wrong and all they do is reset the computer, and you take it back for the same problem over and over, do you quit believing the warning? I don’t think so.

I am certain that everyone reading this article has had one or more of the categories described above. It’s one of the reasons why we are here. To the manufacturers there is no such thing as a problem that reduces the use, value or safety of a vehicle and they will keep asserting this even as you discover that your new truck is so underpowered it won’t tow your son’s Hot Wheels, and that the repair history (which the potential buyer insists on seeing) shows more visits to the dealer than people who bought the 7 series BMW. And of course safety: I suppose as you are extracted from your burning wreck by the “Jaws of Life” the manufacturer might admit that that little problem they have been having with the fuel system was at fault: Probably not.

Many consumers unknowingly get themselves into trouble when they want to pursue their California lemon law rights by attempting to “settle” their “case” themselves. Usually, they can expose themselves to a “settlement” that is substantially less monetarily than is afforded by the California lemon law statute. In case a consumer attempts to deal directly with the automobile manufacturer seeking a “buyback” of their vehicle, the automobile manufacturer has no “rule book” on lemon law to follow, but rather, can simply make any offer that they think the consumer may think is “reasonable”, or that they simply will accept. What’s even worse, many vehicles have substantial safety and drivability issues which may make them an unsafe lemon. Even if the automobile manufacturer was to offer a lemon law “buyback”, that does not necessarily mean the vehicle is being repurchased as a California Lemon Law buyback, i.e. the vehicles title is branded “lemon law buyback”. Often these vehicles are simply repurchased as a “goodwill” buyback and the consumer is asked to sign a settlement document that releases the manufacturer from all “California lemon law buyback” responsibility. This document allows these defective vehicles to be resold to unsuspecting consumer(s) without any “lemon law buyback” disclosure!

Contact an attorney to assure that your vehicle is repurchased pursuant to California lemon law and not by a “goodwill” offer.

Build Dates : September 01, 2005 - September 07, 2005
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 05V552000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20060331
Date Received by ODI: 20051207
Date Added to Databse: 20051207

Manufacturer’s Involved: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 05109

Component: EQUIPMENT:OTHER:LABELS
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 32068

Summary:
Certain trucks and sport utility vehicles fail to conform to the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 110, “tire selection and rims. These vehicles were shipped with tire and loading information labels listing an inacccurate vehicle capacity weight.

Consequence:
A misprinted label could lead to improper vehicle loading specifications or tire inflation which could result in a tire failure, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy:
Owners will be provided with corrected labels and installation instructions. At the customer¿s option, a dealer can install the label for them. The recall began on march 31, 2006.

Shares of General Motors yesterday reached levels that nearly doubled their value from half-century lows set earlier this month.

GM shares closed at $14.58 a share, up 26 cents, or 1.82 percent. Shares of GM had traded as high as $16.43, or up almost $1.75 a share, in earlier trading today. Earlier this month, GM’s stock price had fallen to as low as $8.81 a share.

The rise in GM’s stock, seems to have been caused by two factors: Bill Gate’s entry into the automotive business world through his purchase of 5% of AutoNation Inc, the largest dealership group in the United States; and GM’s disclosure that it’s global sales totaled 4.5 million vehicles in the first six months of this year, with rapid growth overseas.

Clearly, the rumors of GM’s demise, or the suggestion of the need to file bankruptcy is over exaggeration. One has to wonder whether GM’s stock has finally hit bottom and is now on the road to recovery.

For most people, heavy summer rain results in congested rush hour roadways and perhaps increased travel time. For some unlucky car owners, however, driving in heavy rain means having to deal with annoying water leaks. The water leak is not only aggravating, but if allowed to persist, can turn into a hazardous mold condition.

The 2 main problems that usually cause water leaks are defective seals and/or defective drains.

1. Seals – Window seals and weather-stripping are designed to keep interior air in and the outside air out. One of the sings that the seal or weather-stripping is damaged is a hissing or whistle condition. Have the windows inspected for missing or damaged seals. Specifically, lumps or other imperfections may be preventing a seal and letting water in. You can try these 2 ways to check if the seal is working properly:

a. Chalk – Rub chalk on the surface of the weather strip. When you close the door, chalk will transfer from the strip to the door on areas that are sealed properly.

b. Dollar – Place a dollar bill in between the door and the car. Shut the door and then try and pull the dollar out. If your car is properly sealed, you will not be able to pull the dollar out.

2. Drains – Cars are made to channel water to places that are designed as drains. You may not realize it, but water flows all over the inside of a car body. Water can run inside the C pillars, the inside of doors, and through the cowl vents. Therefore it is important that you inspect your car for debris that can block the drains. This is especially true in cowling shields.

Build Dates : April 01, 2004 - June 30, 2005
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 06V139000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20061205
Date Received by ODI: 20060427
Date Added to Databse: 20060427

Manufacturer’s Involved: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 06030

Component: EXTERIOR LIGHTING:BRAKE LIGHTS:SWITCH
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 404733

Summary:
Certain pickup trucks may experience the permanent loss of brake lamp function or brake lamps that are illuminated at all times. The center high-mounted stop lamp (chmsl) is affected in both instances. Also, if equipped, the cruise control will become inoperative. Any trailer brake lamps which are connected to the vehicle’s brake lamp wiring will mimic the vehicle’s brake lamps when either condition occurs.

Consequence:
A following driver may not know when the brakes have been applied, and a rear-end crash could occur without prior warning.

Remedy:
Dealers will replace the brake lamp switch assembly. The recall began on december 5, 2006.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in a nutshell is the federal law that governs and monitors consumer product warranties. It was passed by Congress in 1975, and sets forth requirements and guidelines for manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide their customers with detailed information about their warranty coverage.
It’s also worth mentioning that this Act is designed to effect both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors that are offering written warranties.
So, with that said here’s the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in all it’s glory.

To understand the Act, it is probably best that the consumer be aware of Congress’ intentions when they first passed it.
First of all, Congress wanted to make sure that consumers could get complete information about warranty terms and conditions up front and in their truest form. By providing people with a way of learning what warranty coverage is offered on a product before they buy, the Act actually gives them a way to know exactly what they should expect if something goes wrong, and it also goes a long way in increasing customer satisfaction.

Secondly, Congress wanted to make sure that people could compare warranty coverages before buying their cars because in doing this, consumers can choose a product that has the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.

Thirdly, Congress wanted to promote competition on the basis of warranty coverage alone. By making sure that consumers can get warranty information, the Act has practically forced dealers and manufacturers into hosting sales promotions on the basis of warranty coverage and this competition among companies has made it much easier for consumers to seek various levels of warranty coverage. (Are you seeing a trend yet?)
Finally, Congress wanted to strengthen the pre-existing incentives for companies to perform their warranty obligations in a timely and efficient manner so that it would be easier to resolve any consumer disputes with a minimum of delay and expense.

Because of this, the Act makes it easier for consumers to seek a private solution for any breach of warranty in the courts, but it also creates a foundation for companies to set up good operating procedures for resolving disputes inexpensively and informally, without litigation.

Basically, when you hire a lawyer they go through an extreme investigation in order to learn everything
that they can about your car. This is the only way for them to know how the concerns, which are typically referred to as non-conformities, have affected the use, value or safety of your car. At least this is what they do if you’ve used the previous guide to find a lemon law lawyer who know’s what they’re doing.

When the investigation is absolutely finished, the lawyer will confront the manufacturer of the car, present a very thorough statement about your case and then demand a full recovery for you. If the manufacturer agrees with your position, and you are satisfied with the offer, the case can generally be resolved very quickly.

It is entirely your own choice whether or not to accept or reject any offer. If you choose not to accept the offers made, the case next moves on to litigation which happens by your lawyers filing a lawsuit on your behalf in court.
No matter what you may think, it is not your word against the dealers either. Though this is what the manufacturers want you to feel, it just isn’t the case. Lawyers have the means to get all documents, repair records, service bulletins and names of witnesses to prove your case in court.

Good lawyers frequently take advantage of the services of Master ASE certified mechanics and appraisers who are can act as an impartial aid in understanding the nature of the non-conformities. If it’s necessary, the things that they find are then used in the testimony at trial to prove your case in the event it cannot be settled.
Lawyers use a large number of tools to prove your claim, so it is never your word against theirs. In this sense at least, you should feel at ease. You might be wondering how you can win a case when the repair records given to you by the dealer say the problem was never found. Well good lawyers are ready for this too.

Manipulation and/or poor preparation of repair records is one of the biggest concerns in lemon law cases. What most people don’t know is that when a car is taken to a dealer for a warranty repair, several copies of the repair order are made within the service department, most of these the customer will never see, even if you ask.
Each repair that is performed contains the following copies: customer; warranty payment; accounting and even a hard copy that shows all of the mechanics notes that were made for each repair. Most of the time these notes are not available to the customer; however, the customer copy will list a problem that is the most often complained about but the dealer’s actions might read “could not duplicate customer concerns.”
For that matter, it’s not entirely common for the hard copy to show you that the mechanic found the problem but has also been instructed not to try to do any repairs because no simple procedure can actually fix it.

When this happens, you, the customer get left with the wrong idea that the car is operating properly and will unknowingly drive it anyway; with a potentially dangerous defect.
You may be wondering why this happens so often. Well, it could be that a certain make or model in specific may suffer from a uniform problem such as a defective door latch which the manufacturer still hasn’t corrected.

Since there isn’t a factory authorized repair that was completed at the time, the dealer is told to either write “could not duplicate” or maybe “vehicle operating as designed” and the next thing you know the dealer sends you home with repairs still needed, but not performed.
Another reason that always seems to pop up is time. This is particularly the dealer’s time. Many dealers simply don’t have the resources or the mechanics that they need to properly diagnose and address a concern.

Other times, the manufacturer may limit the amount of time used to diagnose the cars for repairs and in many other cases, the dealer has to use unskilled mechanics who lack the knowledge to perform their function in an effective manner.
The bottom line here is that while repair records are always helpful to a case, they are not the only thing that will determine the outcome. If you feel you are not getting what you paid for in regards to your car’s quality and reliability, then no amount of misrepresentations on a repair invoice should convince you of anything else.

Here is a list of some of the things that you need to pay close attention to:
• How the vehicle is represented by the dealer at the time of sale.
• The repair history of the car and the repair orders that are not given to the customer.
• Accurate statement of customer concern per each invoice.
• Whether an effort of good faith was made to diagnose the problem already.
• Whether the model has a history of problems or not.
• Whether the customer was told the problem would disappear on its own.
• Whether the dealer noted on any invoice that there was a problem that could not be repeated.
• Whether the invoices make a reference to an accident that may have occurred before the sale and if so, whether the damage was mentioned.
• If the dealer told any lies about a customer’s legal rights and most importantly: Whether the customer got what he paid for.

When it comes to your individual case, the lawyer that you choose is very important to the outcome. And what they can do for you rests a great deal on what resources they have available to them and how much information they can gather on your behalf.
So, that’s about it for this guide to lemon laws and your options if you have a lemon car. We’ve covered a lot of information and I hope you’ve found it helpful. After all, that’s why I built this site.

In the interest of being thorough I decided to also include some information on the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act as well as a complete list of all the state automobile lemon laws. Even though we’ve covered the must-know information already I do suggest taking the time to read through those sections as well.
Finally, if you did find the information in this site useful please let your friends and family know about it. You never know, you might just save them the time and trouble of dealing with a lemon of a car.

Build Dates : April 01, 2005 - March 31, 2006
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 07V014000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20070321  
Date Received by ODI: 20070118  
Date Added to Databse: 20070119

Manufacturer’s Involved: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 06217

Component: STRUCTURE
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 98707

Summary:
Certain passenger vehicles not equipped with optional roof-mounted side impact air bags fail to comply with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 201, ‘occupant protection in interior impact.’

Consequence:
In a crash, head impact protection may be inadequate.

Remedy:
Dealers will install energy absorbing plastic to the headliner trim to reduce the severity of head impacts in a crash. The recall began on March 21, 2007.  

Well, here’s a great answer I found online that describes it better than I could.
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.

The Magnuson-Moss Act gives consumers considerable rights in dealing with manufacturers of lemon cars. A car buyer is guaranteed that certain minimum requirements of warranties must be met, and provides for disclosure of warranties before purchase.

Regarding “lemon cars“, this law greatly affects the rights of car buyers. For any product which has a written warranty if any part of the product, or the product itself is considered defective, the warrantor must permit the buyer the choice of either a refund or replacement of the product.

Law firms have argued successfully to juries that the lemon manufacturers should be given three attempts to fix the defect. Continued attempts to repair beyond the initial three should not be allowed. This is called the “three strikes and you’re out” principle.

A consumer may pursue legal action in any court of general jurisdiction in the United States to enforce his rights under the Magnuson-Moss Law. Attorney’s fees based on actual time spent will be covered if the consumer does prevail.

Due to this particular condition, there is quite a bit of financial pressure on the manufacturer to settle consumers disputes before going to court, as this would keep their expenses down.