Arkansas Title 4, Chapter 90, Sections 401-417
Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-401. Title.
This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Arkansas New Motor Vehicle Quality Assurance Act”.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 1; 1993, No. 297, § 1.
Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-402. Legislative determinations and intent.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 2; 1993, No. 297, § 2.
Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-403. Definitions.
- “Calendar day” means any day of the week other than a legal holiday;
- “Collateral charges”means those additional charges to a consumer wholly incurred as a result of the acquisition of the motor vehicle. For the purposes of this subchapter, collateral charges include, but are not limited to, manufacturer-installed or agent-installed items, earned finance charges, sales taxes, title charges, and charges for extended warranties provided by the manufacturer, its subsidiary, or agent;
- “Condition” means a general problem that may be attributable to a defect in more than one (1) part;
- “Consumer”means the purchaser or lessee, other than for the purposes of lease or resale, of a new or previously untitled motor vehicle, or any other person entitled by the terms of the warranty to enforce the obligations of the warranty during the duration of the motor vehicle quality assurance period, provided the purchaser has titled and registered the motor vehicle as prescribed by law;
- “Incidental charges”means those reasonable costs incurred by the consumer, including, but not limited to, towing charges and the costs of obtaining alternative transportation which are directly caused by the nonconformity or nonconformities which are the subject of the claim, but shall not include loss of use, loss of income, or personal injury claims;
- “Lease price” means the aggregate of:
- The lessor’s actual purchase costs;
- Collateral charges, if applicable;
- Any fee paid to another person to obtain the lease;
- Any insurance or other costs expended by the lessor for the benefit of the lease;
- An amount equal to state and local sales taxes, not otherwise included as collateral charges, paid by the lessor when the vehicle was initially purchased; and
- An amount equal to five percent (5%) of the lessor’s actual purchase price;
- “Lessee” means any consumer who leases a motor vehicle for one (1) year or more pursuant to a written lease agreement which provides that the lessee is responsible for repairs to such motor vehicle;
- “Lessee cost” means the aggregate deposit and rental payments previously paid to the lessor for the leased vehicle;
- “Lessor” means a person who holds title to a motor vehicle leased to a lessee under the written lease agreement or who holds the lessor’s rights under such agreement;
- “Manufacturer” means:
- Any person who is engaged in the business of constructing or assembling new motor vehicles or installing, on previously assembled vehicle chassis, special bodies or equipment which, when installed, form an integral part of the new motor vehicle; or
- In the case of motor vehicles not manufactured in the United States, any person who is engaged in the business of importing new motor vehicles into the United States for the purpose of selling or distributing new motor vehicles to new motor vehicle dealers;
- “Motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle licensed, purchased, or leased in this state and primarily designed for the transportation of persons or property over the public streets and highways, but does not include mopeds, motorcycles, the living facilities of a motor home, or vehicles over ten thousand pounds (10,000 lbs.) gross vehicle weight rating. For purposes of this definition, the limit of ten thousand pounds (10,000 lbs.) gross vehicle weight rating does not apply to motor homes;
- “Motor vehicle quality assurance period” means a period of time that:
- On the date of original delivery of a motor vehicle; or
- In the case of a replacement vehicle provided by a manufacturer to a consumer under this subchapter, on the date of delivery of the replacement vehicle to the consumer; and
- Ends twenty-four (24) months after the date of the original delivery of the motor vehicle to a consumer, or the first twenty-four thousand (24,000) miles of operation attributable to the consumer, whichever is later;
- “Nonconformity” means any specific or generic defect or condition or any concurrent combination of defects or conditions that:
- Substantially impairs the use, market value, or safety of a motor vehicle; or
- Renders the motor vehicle nonconforming to the terms of an applicable manufacturer’s express warranty or implied warranty of merchantability;
- “Person” means any natural person, partnership, firm, corporation, association,joint venture, trust, or other legal entity;
- “Purchase price” means the cash price paid for the motor vehicle appearing in the sales agreement or contract, including any net allowance for a trade-in vehicle;
- “Replacement motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle which is identical or reasonably equivalent to the motor vehicle to be replaced, as the motor vehicle replaced existed at the time of the original acquisition; and
- “Warranty”means any written warranty issued by the manufacturer, or any affirmation of fact or promise made by the manufacturer, excluding statements made by the dealer, in connection with the sale or lease of a motor vehicle to a consumer which relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is free of defects or will meet a specified level of performance. .
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 3; 1993, No. 297, § 3; 1995, No. 302, § 1.
Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-404. Notice by consumer – Disclosure by manufacturer, agent, or dealer.
- 1. A consumer must notify the manufacturer of a claim under this subchapter if the manufacturer has made the disclosure required by subsection (b) of this section.
- 2. However, if the manufacturer has not made the required disclosure, the consumer is not required to notify the manufacturer of a claim under this subchapter.
- 1. At the time of the consumer’s purchase or lease of the vehicle, the manufacturer, its agent, or an authorized dealer shall provide to the consumer a written statement that explains the consumer’s rights and obligations under this subchapter.
- 2. The written statement shall be prepared by the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General and shall include the telephone number of the Consumer Protection Division that the consumer can contact to obtain information regarding his or her rights and obligations under this subchapter.
- 3. For each failure of the manufacturer, its agent, or an authorized dealer to provide to a consumer the written statement required under this section, the manufacturer shall be liable to the State of Arkansas for a civil penalty of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
- 1. The manufacturer shall clearly and conspicuously disclose to the consumer, in the warranty or owner’s manual, that written notice of the nonconformity is required before the buyer may be eligible for a refund or replacement of the vehicle.
- 2. The manufacturer shall provide the consumer with conspicuous notice of the address and phone number for its zone, district, or regional office for this state at the time of vehicle acquisition, to which the buyer must send notification.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 5; 1993, No. 297, § 5; 1995, No. 302, § 2.Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-405. Required warranty repairs.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 4; 1993, No. 297, § 4.Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-406. Failure to make required repairs.
- 1. After three (3) attempts have been made to repair the same nonconformity that substantially impairs the motor vehicle, or after one (1) attempt to repair a nonconformity that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, the consumer shall give written notification, by certified or registered mail, to the manufacturer of the need to repair the nonconformity in order to allow the manufacturer a final attempt to cure the nonconformity.
- 2. The manufacturer shall, within ten (10) days after receipt of the notification, notify and provide the consumer with the opportunity to have the vehicle repaired at a reasonably accessible repair facility, and, after delivery of the vehicle to the designated repair facility by the consumer, the manufacturer shall, within ten (10) days, conform the motor vehicle to the warranty.
- 3. If the manufacturer fails to notify and provide the consumer with the opportunity to have the vehicle repaired at a reasonably accessible repair facility or fails to perform the repairs within the time periods prescribed in this subsection, the requirement that the manufacturer be given a final attempt to cure the nonconformity does not apply and a non rebuttable presumption of a reasonable number of attempts to repair arises.
- A. If the manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer has not conformed the motor vehicle to the warranty by repairing or correcting one (1) or more nonconformities that substantially impair the motor vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer, within forty (40) days, shall:
- i. At the time of its receipt of payment of a reasonable offset for use by the consumer, replace the motor vehicle with a replacement motor vehicle acceptable to the consumer; or
- ii. Repurchase the motor vehicle from the consumer or lessor and refund to the consumer or lessor the full purchase price or lease price, less a reasonable offset for use and less a reasonable offset for physical damage sustained to the vehicle while under the ownership of the consumer.
- The replacement or refund shall include payment of all collateral and reasonably incurred incidental charges.
- A. If the manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer has not conformed the motor vehicle to the warranty by repairing or correcting one (1) or more nonconformities that substantially impair the motor vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer, within forty (40) days, shall:
- 2. (A) The consumer shall have an unconditional right to choose a refund rather than a replacement. (B) At the time of such refund or replacement, the consumer, lienholder, or lessor shall furnish to the manufacturer clear title to and possession of the motor vehicle.
- 3. The amount of reasonable offset for use by the consumer shall be determined by multiplying the actual price of the new motor vehicle paid or payable by the consumer, including any charges for transportation and manufacturer-installed or agent-installed options, by a fraction having as its denominator one hundred twenty thousand (120,000) and having as its numerator the number of miles traveled by the new motor vehicle prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer for correction of the problem that gave rise to the nonconformity.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 6; 1993, No. 297, § 6; 1995, No. 302, § 3.§Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-407. Refunds.
- Refunds shall be made to the consumer and lienholder of record, if any, as their interests may appear.
- If applicable, refunds shall be made to the lessor and lessee as follows:
- The lessee shall receive the lessee cost less a reasonable offset for use; and
- The lessor shall receive the lease price less the aggregate deposit and rental payments previously paid to the lessor for the leased vehicle.
- b. If the manufacturer makes a refund to the lessor or lessee pursuant to this subchapter, the consumer’s lease agreement with the lessor shall be terminated upon payment of the refund and no penalty for early termination shall be assessed.
- c. If a replaced vehicle was financed by the manufacturer, its subsidiary, or agent, the manufacturer, subsidiary, or agent may not require the buyer to enter into any refinancing agreement concerning a replacement vehicle that would create any financial obligations upon the buyer beyond those of the original financing agreement.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 7; 1993, No. 297, § 7.§ Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-408. Reimbursement of towing and rental costs.
§ Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-409. Option to retain use of vehicle.
§ Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-410. Presumption of reasonable attempts to repair – Extension of time to repair in case of war, invasion, strike, fire, flood, or natural disaster.
- A rebuttable presumption of a reasonable number of attempts to repair is considered to have been undertaken to correct a nonconformity if:
- The nonconformity has been subject to repair as provided in § 4-90-406(a), but the nonconformity continues to exist;
- The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair, or attempt to repair, any nonconformity for a cumulative total of thirty (30) calendar days; or
- There have been five (5) or more attempts, on separate occasions, to repair any nonconformities that together substantially impair the use and value of the motor vehicle to the consumer.
- 1. The thirty (30) calendar days in subdivision (a)(2) of this section shall be extended by any period of time during which repair services are not available as a direct result of war, invasion, strike, fire, flood, or natural disaster.
- 2. The manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer shall provide or make provisions for the free use of a vehicle to any consumer whose vehicle is out of service beyond thirty (30) days by reason of delayed repair as a direct result of war, invasion, strike, fire, flood, or natural disaster.
- c. The burden is on the manufacturer to show that the reason for an extension under subsection (b) of this section was the direct cause for the failure of the manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer to cure any nonconformity during the time of the event.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 12; 1993, No. 297, § 12. § Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-411. Diagnosis or repair – Documentation.
- A manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer may not refuse to diagnose or repair any vehicle for the purpose of avoiding liability under this subchapter.
- A manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer shall provide a consumer with a written repair order each time the consumer’s vehicle is brought in for examination or repair.
- The repair order must indicate all work performed on the vehicle, including examination of the vehicle, parts, and labor.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 13; 1993, No. 297, § 13. § Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-412. Resale of returned nonconforming vehicle.
- 1. The manufacturer provides the same express warranty the manufacturer provided to the original purchaser, except that the term of the warranty need only last for twelve thousand (12,000) miles or twelve (12) months after the date of resale, whichever occurs first; and
- 2. The manufacturer provides a written disclosure, signed by the consumer, indicating that the vehicle was returned to the manufacturer because of a nonconformity not cured within a reasonable time as provided by Arkansas law.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 14; 1993, No. 297, § 14.
§ Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-413. Affirmative defenses.
- The nonconformity, defect, or condition does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the motor vehicle;
- 2. The nonconformity, defect, or condition is the result of an accident, abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modification or alteration of the motor vehicle by persons other than the manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer;
- The claim by the consumer was not filed in good faith; or
- Any other defense allowed by law that may be raised against the claim.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 15; 1993, No. 297, § 15.
§ Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-414. Informal proceeding as precedent.
- 1. Any manufacturer doing business in this state, entering into franchise agreements for the sale of its motor vehicles in this state, or offering express warranties on its motor vehicles sold or distributed for sale in this state, shall operate, or participate in, an informal dispute settlement proceeding located in the State of Arkansas which complies with the requirements of this section.
- 2. The provisions of § 4-90-406(b)(1) and (2) concerning refunds or replacement do not apply to a consumer who has not first used this informal proceeding before commencing a civil action, unless the manufacturer allows a consumer to commence an action without first using this informal procedure.
- The consumer shall receive adequate written notice from the manufacturer of the existence of the procedure.
- B. Adequate written notice may include the incorporation of the informal dispute settlement procedure into the terms of the written warranty to which the motor vehicle does not conform.
- The informal dispute procedure must be certified by the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General as meeting the following criteria:
- 1. The informal dispute procedure must comply with the minimum requirements of the Federal Trade Commission for informal dispute settlement procedures as set forth in 16 C.F.R. § 703.1 et seq., as in effect on the date of adoption of this subchapter, unless any provision of 16 C.F.R. § 703.1 et seq. is in conflict with this subchapter, in which case the provisions of this subchapter shall govern;
- 2. The informal dispute procedure must prescribe a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty (30) days after the decision is accepted by the buyer, within which the manufacturer or its agent must fulfill the terms of its decisions;
- A. No documents shall be received by any informal dispute procedure unless those documents have been provided to each of the parties in the dispute at or prior to the proceeding, with an opportunity for the parties to comment on the documents either in writing or orally.
- B. If a consumer is present during the informal dispute proceeding, the consumer may request postponement of the proceeding meeting to allow sufficient time to review any documents presented at the time of the meeting which had not been presented to the consumer prior to the time of the meeting;
- A. The informal dispute procedure shall allow each party to appear and make an oral presentation within the State of Arkansas unless the consumer agrees to submit the dispute for decision on the basis of documents alone or by telephone, or unless the party fails to appear for an oral presentation after reasonable prior written notice.
- B. If the consumer agrees to submit the dispute for decision on the basis of documents alone, then the manufacturer or dealer representatives may not participate in the discussion or decision of the dispute;
- 5. Consumers shall be given an adequate opportunity to contest a manufacturer’s assertion that a nonconformity falls within intended specifications for the vehicle by having the basis of the manufacturer’s claim appraised by a technical expert selected and paid for by the consumer prior to the informal dispute settlement hearing;
- A consumer may not be charged with a fee to participate in an informal dispute procedure; and
- Any party to the dispute has the right to be represented by an attorney in an informal dispute proceeding.
- A. The informal dispute procedure shall annually submit a pool of not less than six (6) members who are appointed with the advice and consent of the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General.
- B. Selected strictly by rotation, one (1) member shall hear disputes scheduled for a particular session unless the consumer requests a panel of three (3) members, in which case three (3) members shall hear disputes scheduled for a particular three-member session.
- C. If the informal dispute procedure deems it appropriate to require the services of an independent investigator, such investigator shall be selected from a pool of not less than four (4) members who are appointed annually with the advice and consent of the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General and from which the particular investigator shall be selected strictly by rotation.
- 2. Upon notification to the administrator of any informal dispute procedure that a determination has been made by the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General that a member of any pool is not conforming to standards of fairness and impartiality, that member shall be immediately removed from the pool.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 16; 1993, No. 297, § 16.
§ Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-415. Enforcement – Exclusivity – Costs and expenses.
- A consumer may bring a civil action to enforce this subchapter in a court of competent jurisdiction.
- This subchapter does not limit the rights and remedies that are otherwise available to a consumer under any applicable provisions of law.
- c. A consumer who prevails in any legal proceeding under this subchapter is entitled to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based upon actual time expended by the attorney, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the consumer for or in connection with the commencement and prosecution of the action.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, §§ 17-19; 1993, No. 297, §§ 17-19. § Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-416. Time limitation for commencement of action.
- a. An action brought under this subchapter must be commenced within two (2) years following the date the buyer first reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer.
- b. When the buyer has commenced an informal dispute settlement procedure described in § 4-90-414, the two-year period specified in subsection (a) of this section begins to run at the time the informal dispute settlement procedure is being commenced.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 20; 1993, No. 297, § 20.
§ Arkansas Lemon Law 4-90-417. Deceptive trade practices.
History. Acts 1993, No. 285, § 21; 1993, No. 297, § 21.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
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.
Your car is a major investment, rationalized by the peace of mind that flows from its expected dependability and safety. Accordingly, you are entitled to expect an automobile properly constructed and regulated to provide reasonably safe, trouble-free, and dependable transportation – regardless of the exact make and model you bought. Unfortunately, sometimes these principles do not hold true and defects arise in automobiles. Although one defect is not actionable, repeated defects are as there exists a generally accepted rule that unsuccessful repair efforts render the warrantor liable. Simply put, there comes a time when “enough is enough” – when after having to take your car into the shop for repairs an inordinate number of times and experiencing all of the attendant inconvenience, you are entitled to say, ‘That’s all,’ and revoke, notwithstanding the seller’s repeated good faith efforts to fix the car. The rationale behind these basic principles is clear: once your faith in the vehicle is shaken, the vehicle loses its real value to you and becomes an instrument whose integrity is impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension. The question thus becomes when is “enough”?
As you know, enough is never enough from your warrantor’s point of view and you should simply continue to have your defective vehicle repaired – time and time again. However, you are not required to allow a warrantor to tinker with your vehicle indefinitely in the hope that it may eventually be fixed. Rather, you are entitled to expect your vehicle to be repaired within a reasonable opportunity. To this end, both the federal Moss Warranty Act, and the various state “Lemon Laws,” require repairs to your vehicle be performed within a reasonable opportunity.
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a warrantor should perform adequate repairs in at least two, and possibly three, attempts to correct a particular defect. Further, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s reasonableness requirement applies to your vehicle as a whole rather than to each individual defect that arises. Although most of the Lemon Laws vary from state to state, each individual law usually require a warrantor to cure a specific defect within four to five attempts or the automobile as a whole within thirty days. If the warrantor fails to meet this obligation, most of the Lemon Laws provide for a full refund or new replacement vehicle. Further, this reasonable number of attempts/reasonable opportunity standard, whether it be that of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or that of the Lemon Laws, is akin to strict liability – once this threshold has been met, the continued existence of a defect is irrelevant and you are still entitled to relief.
One of the most important parts of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is its fee shifting provision. This provision provides that you may recover the attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of your case if you are successful – independent of how much you actually win. That rational behind this fee shifting provision is to twofold: (1) to ensure you will be able to vindicate your rights without having to expend large sums on attorney’s fees and (2) because automobile manufacturers are able to write off all expenses of defense as a legitimate business expense, whereas you, the average consumer, obviously does not have that kind of economic staying power. Most of the Lemon Laws contain similar fee shifting provisions.
You may also derive additional warranty rights from the Uniform Commercial Code; however, the Code does not allow you in most states to recover your attorney fees and is also not as consumer friendly as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or the various state Lemon Laws.
The narrative information on Magnuson-Moss, UCC and Arkansas lemon laws on these pages is provided by Marshall Meyers, attorney.
Uniform Commercial Code Summary
The Uniform Commercial Code or UCC has been enacted in all 50 states and some of the territories of the United States. It is the primary source of law in all contracts dealing with the sale of products. The TARR refers to Tender, Acceptance, Rejection, Revocation and applies to different aspects of the consumer’s “relationship” with the purchased goods.
TENDER – The tender provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code contained in Section2-601 provide that the buyer is entitled to reject any goods that fail in any respect to conform to the contract. Unfortunately, new cars are often technically complex and their innermost workings are beyond the understanding of the average new car buyer. The buyer, therefore, does not know whether the goods are then conforming.
ACCEPTANCE – The new car buyer accepts the goods believing and expecting that the manufacturer will repair any problem he has with the goods under the warranty.
REJECTION – The new car buyer may discover a problem with the vehicle within the first few miles of his purchase. This would allow the new car buyer to reject the goods. If the new car buyer discovers a defect in the car within a reasonable time to inspect the vehicle, he may reject the vehicle. This period is not defined. On the one hand, the buyer must be given a reasonable time to inspect and that reasonable time to inspect will be held as an acceptance of the vehicle. The Courts will decide this reasonable time to inspect based on the knowledge and experience of the buyer, the difficulty in discovering the defect, and the opportunity to discover the defect. The following is an example of a case of rejection: Mr. Zabriskie purchase a new 1966 Chevrolet Biscayne. After picking up the car on Friday evening, while en route to his home 2.5 miles away, and within 7/10ths of a mile from the dealership, the car stalled and stalled again within 15 feet. Thereafter, the car would only drive in low gear. The buyer rejected the vehicle and stopped payment on his check. The dealer contended that the buyer could not reject the car because he had driven it around the block and that was his reasonable opportunity to inspect. The New Jersey Court said;
To the layman, the complicated mechanisms of today’s automobile are a complete mystery. To have the automobile inspected by someone with sufficient expertise to disassemble the vehicle in order the discover latent defects before the contract is signed, is assuredly impossible and highly impractical. Consequently, the first few miles of driving become even more significant to the excited new car buyer. This is the buyer’s first reasonable opportunity to enjoy his new vehicle to see if it conforms to what it was represented to be and whether he is getting what he bargained for. How long the buyer may drive the new car under the guise of inspection of new goods is not an issue in the present case because 7/10th of a mile is clearly within the ambit of a reasonable opportunity to inspect. Zabriskie Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smith, 240 A. 2d 195(1968)
It is suggested that Courts will tend to excuse use by consumers if possible.
REVOCATION – What happens when the consumer has used the new car for a lengthy period of time? This is the typical lemon car case. The UCC provides that a buyer may revoke his acceptance of goods whose non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to him when he has accepted the goods without discovery of a non-conformity because it was difficult to discover or if he was assured that non-conformities would be repaired. Of course, the average new car buyer does not learn of the nonconformity until hundreds of thousands of miles later. And because quality is job one, and manufacturers are competing on the basis of their warranties, the consumer always is assured that any noncomformities he does discover will be remedied.
What is a noncomformity substantially impairing the value of the vehicle?
- A noncomformity may include a number of relatively minor defects whose cumulative total adds up to a substantial impairment. This is the “Shake Faith” Doctrine first stated in the Zabrisikie case. “For a majority of people the purchase of a new car is a major investment, rationalized by the peace of mind that flows from its dependability and safety. Once their faith is shaken, the vehicle loses not only its real value in their eyes, but becomes an instrument whose integrity is substantially impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension”.
- A substantial noncomformity may include a failure or refusal to repair the goods under the warranty. In Durfee V. Rod Baxter Imports, the Minnesota Court held that the Saab owner that was plagued by a series of of annoying minor defects and stalling, which were never repaired after a number of attempts, could revoke, “if repairs are not successfully undertaken within a reasonable time”, the consumer may elect to revoke.
- Substantial Non Conformity and Lemon Laws often define what may be considered a substantial impairment. These definitions have been successfully used to flesh out the substantial impairment in the UCC.
Additional narrative information on Magnusson-Moss, UCC and Arkansas lemon laws on these pages is provided by T. Michael Flinn, attorney.