Here’s a general review of lemon laws in the US. It seems to me that posting this occasionally is useful. It doesn’t cover state rules in detail, and you can look those up on your state government website or using a web search for your state’s laws.
1 Like
It seems to me that driver’s expectations have risen over the past few years, sometimes to unreasonable levels. One lemon law hearing recently had the complainant stating “I expect perfection with a new car.” The fact that the driver’s seat showed this wear after only 22,000 miles was enough for the driver to file a lemon law complaint after the dealer described this as normal wear and tear not covered by warranty:
Another driver filed a lemon law claim for a buyback because the navigation system routinely went blank or reset and the dealer was unable to repair it after 4 visits. No other issues with the vehicle.
Another driver filed a claim for a buyback because of an unreasonable defect with the safety systems of the vehicle. Once every few weeks the backup camera would go black. How did this affect the safe use of the vehicle? The driver needed to use the backup camera to tell if he had pulled into the garage far enough to roll down the door.
Sometimes the lemon laws get used, sometimes they get abused.
2 Likes
#1 is completely unreasonable. #2 and #3 are reasonable IMO. There are circumstances where a malfunctioning back up camera is a safety concern. If it happened when backing up then not seeing someone behind the vehicle is a safety problem. As for a nav system, it costs upwards of $1000. Shouldn’t the manufacturer be responsible for fixing it in a reasonable amount of time?
2 Likes
+1
I agree, you bought a vehicle with certain options and or standard equipment, a Nav system is no more required than a working HVAC system, I mean cars didn’t always have A/C and good heat, but I/you paid for said vehicle and I expect it to work as advertised while under warranty, and if the dealer can’t make it right, then they should swap it for one that works correctly…
Yes drivers expectations have gone up, but dang, so have the prices we are paying for those vehicles… You paid for every part on that vehicle, you should be able to use every part of that vehicle, why would you not expect it to work correctly???
If you buy a brand new house, do you not expect the bathrooms and kitchen to work 100% properly???
4 Likes
In a 2012 Ford Fusion you can see almost nothing out the back. It’s built to have the backup camera.
1 Like
Lemon Law buybacks/repairs are based on the principle that the issue is significant, bearing in mind that the purpose of a car is to safely and reliably transport you and your passengers from A to B.
“Can you tell me how the navigation system freezing impacts the use of the car?”
“I was going to Walmart and the screen froze, so I turned around and went home and was unable to do my shopping.”
“Did the car continue to drive and function normally other than the nav screen?”
“Yes.”
It’s the car’s job to get you to Walmart and back, not show you the way. I fail to see how the car prevented the driver from getting to the store. And the dealer was not refusing to repair the car. Intermittent issues can be tough to chase down and may require several visits or time for the problem to become more consistent. Either way, a malfunctioning navigation system does not qualify for state lemon law as being a substantial defect.
Clearly. And this was a manufacturer that routinely goes the extra mile for customer care. But sometimes you just have to draw the line.
+1
The specific verbiage in my state’s Lemon Law statute is that the defect has to be one that “materially affects the safety or drivability of the vehicle”. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that many other states have similar restrictions in their version of the Lemon Law.
When the statute was being debated in the state legislature, many years ago, it was stated that this wording was inserted so that someone couldn’t utilize the Lemon Law because their audio system’s sound quality displeased them.
So…what should happen if I buy a convertible and the convertible doesn’t work? A number of Saab owners had that happen to them.
2 Likes
Hopefully, it gets stuck in the down position. Then you could argue it substantially affects the usability of the product. Like any defective or poorly designed product, you may have to litigate to get properly compensated. Hopefully, after numerous repair attempts, they would consider a buyback…
Yep, Saab bought back two of those from folks I know.
I’m just gonna say this, if I pay X amount for a vehicle and part of what I paid for doesn’t work, the manufacture still excepts the money regardless if I am able to use said item or not, well if the manufacture expects 100% of my money, then I expect 100% of said vehicle to work for that money, I don’t care if it is the radio or not, are they gonna compensate me for the time not able to use it??
We are still expected to make those payments no matter what…
I’m not talking about normal warranty work, I’m talking about those items the dealers can’t seem to fix… As a mechanic, I understand sometimes things are hard to diagnose and what not…
1 Like
I don’t know anybody that would disagree with you. What people are saying here is that the specific Lemon Law in your state may not cover those instances. In those cases, it’s not much different than anything you buy that doesn’t work as advertised. There are recourse avenues to get reimbursed if they can’t fix it. Same here. It may take some legwork on your part but likely you will get compensated in the end. At least I would 
I am relentless if I feel I have been wronged…
I once bought a name brand washer from a company that prided themselves on reliability. You can guess which. At any rate, within a couple uses, it puked out all the transmission oil onto the basement floor. A service call was made, a guy from a local repair shop that was authorized by them to repair their products came out and had a look see. Yep, leaked out all the transmission fluid. He then says they may not do anything other than replace the seal. What, no replacing the oil? Nope. You don’t really need it and they won’t authorize the repair for it. What does the oil do? I asked. It reduces the noise, he says. Well, I bought a new washer, don’t you think I want it to be quiet? Don’t you think I want it to be as good as new, the way it was designed to work? Long story short, he came back with a new transmission and replaced the defective one. But that left a sour taste in my mouth and next time, I bought a different make…
1 Like
Some things are that black and white and some things aren’t.
Suppose you bring your Tacoma back to the dealer 3 times because the mud flaps don’t work (yes, really happened) and they still aren’t able to fix it to your satisfaction. Are you entitled to a buyback? A refund of the portion of the sales price? Or do you just have to live with washing your truck once a week?
A failed transmission renders the car undriveable, and 3 attempts to repair it without resolving the problem qualifies it for a lemon law buyback. A failing nav system does not affect the use of the vehicle for its normal intended purpose and, as I see it, is excluded from any lemon law or warranty relief.
In the example above, the dealer is not refusing to fix the nav system. It’s an intermittent problem that they are not able to duplicate, and will repair the problem, under the terms of the basic warranty, once they are able to duplicate the complaint and come up with a repair. The driver did bring the car in 4 times, but the first 2 were NPF/unable to duplicate, and the second 2 were attempts to repair the issue without being able to verify it. The dealer has been instructed by field engineers to not attempt any further repairs until they can duplicate the issue and troubleshoot correctly. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
There is an active case right now similar to that. How it got to arbitration in the first place puzzles me.
2 Likes
I bought a new Taurus in the 1980s. Shortly after purchase, the AC stopped working. I took it in for warranty work and the dealer fixed it, but the AC clutch squealed after I got it back. I took it back and they tried unsuccessfully to fix it. After the fourth try, I sent a letter to Ford asking for a lemon law replacement. I then took the car back to the dealer a fifth time. The service adviser looked at his computer terminal and his eyes widened. I guess he saw that this was the last time they had to make good. They replaced the AC compressor and the AC functioned well until we sold the car several years later. The threat of the lemon law forced Ford and the dealer to fix the car, even if it took five visits.
1 Like
Back in 2008, my friend bought a new Rav-4, and–against my advice–opted to have the dealership install a remote start system. Shortly after taking delivery of the car, it began displaying a lot of weird symptoms: Each morning, the clock would be “off” by almost an hour, certain accessories would be intermittently dead, and occasional stalling took place.
He went through the required routine of taking it back to the dealership for two (failed) tries at fixing it. Before his 3rd visit, I drafted a letter to Toyota, instituting a Lemon Law claim, and demanding (as per NJ law) a full cash refund, including taxes and fees instead of a replacement vehicle. In response, they requested a 3rd visit, so he complied.
When we arrived at the dealership, the service writer introduced us to the Regional Service Supervisor and a Japanese engineer who appeared to speak very little English. About 4 hours later, we got a call from the Regional guy, asking us to return to pick up the vehicle, as it had been repaired.
He was surprisingly candid when I asked how they fixed it. He explained that the installer (an outside “alarm specialist”) had left the remote start system in “test mode”, and that this periodically caused an interruption in the electrical system. And, true to his word, they had fixed a problem that had eluded the dealer’s mechanics.
I think it’s important to note that, when my friend asked about remote start systems, the dealership had tried to push an aftermarket system, rather than the genuine Toyota remote start system. I insisted that he get the Toyota system.
Because the problem lay in a Toyota component that had been installed prior to delivery at the Toyota dealership, the vehicle was definitely covered by the Lemon Law. If my friend had opted for an aftermarket system, the Lemon Law would not have applied.
1 Like
Some manufacturers have gotten smart at how to avoid Lemon Laws.
A few years back I had a problem with the dual mass flywheel in our 5 speed (manual) Hyundai Sonata. The springs between the two halves of the flywheel would dislodge and lift slightly on hard braking, causing the two halves to separate just enough so that the clutch would never fully disengage. Even with the clutch pedal fully depressed, the clutch remained slightly engaged. [1]
The only solution was to shut the engine off and restart. Then everything was fine till the next hard braking.
My first visit to the dealer:
They said “no problem found”, and told me I don’t know how to drive a standard.
My second visit to the dealer:
They replaced the dual mass flywheel. It worked fine for several years and then slowly began to happen again.
My third visit to the dealer:
They told me I needed to pay for a diagnosis, and if they found a problem, they would reimburse me. I thought this was great because the problem was so obvious. After and R&R of the transmission and clutch, they told me they didn’t find anything wrong and I had to pay them over $1200 for diagnosing it.
Given I had three repair attempts, I pursued the Lemon Law.
In the Lemon Law hearing when Hyundai and I were arguing our cases to the board, Hyundai stated the following:
The plaintiff did not meet the requirement for 3 repair attempts. He only has his first two. His third was a “customer pay” service.
The Lemon Law arbitration board agreed with Hyundai, and I was livid.
[1] A mechanic at the Hyundai dealer who did one of the “repair attempts” validated the dual mass flywheel issue. He said he was afraid of losing his job if his management saw him talking with me, and he gave me his home cell phone number to talk instead.
I then tried bringing Hyundai to small claims court. The regional technical rep, armed with corporate legal backing, kept insisting there was no problem and that I didn’t know how to drive a standard. (Judging by his age, I was replacing clutches and rebuilding transmissions long before he was born.)
The judge ruled in Hyundai’s favor - Hyundai had a technical expert and I didn’t.
1 Like
While Hyundai won the day, I am guessing that they lost you (and probably your friends and family members) as a future customer.
2 Likes
These are significant issues that can and do affect the normal operation of the vehicle for its intended purpose and, after 3 or 4 attempts (depending on your state) to resolve may qualify for lemon law or warranty remedy. A balky navigation system does not affect the safe and reliable operation of the vehicle, and a buzzing left front speaker is not grounds for the manufacturer to buy back your car. The car is no more responsible for showing you how to get to the grocery store than your phone is responsible for driving you there.
That’s ridiculously generous. Any state I’m involved with requires a mileage offset for repurchase. The manufacturer isn’t responsible for the miles already driven or what you spend for tax and license. That should come out of the Customer’s pocket. If the driver goes 30,000 miles before the transmission blows up and goes lemon law, the driver should pay for the 25% of the life of the car he’s used up.