Objective technical opinions-Lemon Law & Warranty Litigation

---

Violation of Federal Safety Law (Recalls) under 49 §  30120 AND 30122: 

1)  If the dealer/repair shop knowingly allows a recalled safety system to remain defective, it can be considered “knowingly making inoperative” a safety system (drivability). 

2) Dealerships have a heightened duty because they are authorized agents of the manufacturer and are directly notified of recalls. 

3) Returning a car with an unperformed recall is a clear breach of the standard of care.

4) Puts the consumer and public at risk of foreseeable injury from the known defect (e.g., stall while driving; accident with injury and/or death.

Dealership refusal to repair HVAC delivery-mode (door)  issue, impairing driver's field of vision.  Non-compliance of FMVSS 572.103 under FMVSS 103; FMVSS 205.  Issued repaired under warranty. 

MMWA 15 U.S.C. § 2301 requires manufacturer honor repairs or replacements for defects within the warranty period.  

Settled in vehicle owner favor.

Dealership refusal to recognize factory drivetrain warranty on revised service procedure as factory installed part was sheading metal shavings during break-in period; posted issue after consumer purchase. Consumer received letter stating to return to dealership for service making it appear it was covered under warranty. Customer was charged $1,500 for the no-noted fee, assumed free. 

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) violations:

1)  OE deceptive wording in letter lead consumer to believe that this was a service under warranty as it was not clearly stated that there would be a charge for this altered, mandatory maintenance service (before 8,000-miles). 

2)  MMWA 15 U.S.C. § 2301 requires manufacturer honor repairs or replacements for defects within the warranty period; OE is obligated to repair-replace under powertrain or transmission warranty. This is an acceptable remedy as long as it is performed at no-charge to the consumer within the warranty period.