New Jersey Lemon law Title 56:12-29 – 56:12-49
56:12-29. Findings, intentions
New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-30. Definitions
” Consumer” means a buyer or lessee, other than for purposes of resale or sublease, of a motor vehicle; a person to whom a motor vehicle is transferred during the duration of a warranty applicable to the motor vehicle; or any other person entitled by the terms of the warranty to enforce the obligations of the warranty.
” Dealer” means a person who is actively engaged in the business of buying, selling or exchanging motor vehicles at retail and who has an established place of business.
” Director” means the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety, or his designee.
” Division” means the Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety.
” Lease agreement” means a contract or other written agreement in the form of a lease for the use of a motor vehicle by a person for a period of time exceeding 60 days, whether or not the lessee has the option to purchase or otherwise become the owner of the motor vehicle at the expiration of the lease.
” Lessee” means a person who leases a motor vehicle pursuant to a lease agreement.
” Lessor” means a person who holds title to a motor vehicle leased to a lessee under a lease agreement or who holds the lessor’s rights under such an agreement.
” Lien” means a security interest in a motor vehicle.
” Lienholder” means a person with a security interest in a motor vehicle pursuant to a lien.
” Manufacturer” means a person engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling or distributing motor vehicles, who will, under normal business conditions during the year, manufacture, assemble or distribute to dealers at least 10 new motor vehicles.
” Manufacturer’s informal dispute settlement procedure” means an arbitration process or procedure by which the manufacturer attempts to resolve disputes with consumers regarding motor vehicle nonconformities and repairs that arise during the vehicle’s warranty period.
” Manufacturer’s warranty” or “warranty” means any warranty, whether express or implied of the manufacturer, of a new motor vehicle of its condition and fitness for use, including any terms or conditions precedent to the enforcement of obligations under the warranty.
” Motor vehicle” means a passenger automobile or motorcycle as defined in R.S.39:1-1 which is purchased or leased in the State of New Jersey or which is registered by the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Law and Public Safety, except the living facilities of motor homes.
” Nonconformity” means a defect or condition which substantially impairs the use, value or safety of a motor vehicle.
” Reasonable allowance for vehicle use” means the mileage at the time the consumer first presents the motor vehicle to the dealer or manufacturer for correction of a nonconformity times the purchase price, or the lease price if applicable, of the vehicle, divided by one hundred thousand miles.
L.1988,c.123,s.2; amended 1991,c.130; 1993,c.21,s.3.
New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-31. Report of nonconformity; repairs
New Jersey Lemon law56:12-32. Refunds
- If, during the period specified in section 3 of this act, the manufacturer or its dealer is unable to repair or correct a nonconformity within a reasonable time, the manufacturer shall accept return of the motor vehicle from the consumer. The manufacturer shall provide the consumer with a full refund of the purchase price of the original motor vehicle including any stated credit or allowance for the consumer’s used motor vehicle, the cost of any options or other modifications arranged, installed, or made by the manufacturer or its dealer within 30 days after the date of original delivery, and any other charges or fees including, but not limited to, sales tax, license and registration fees, finance charges, reimbursement for towing and reimbursement for actual expenses incurred by the consumer for the rental of a motor vehicle equivalent to the consumer’s motor vehicle and limited to the period during which the consumer’s motor vehicle was out of service due to a nonconformity, less a reasonable allowance for vehicle use. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude a manufacturer from making an offer to replace the vehicle in lieu of a refund; except that the consumer may, in any case, reject a manufacturer’s offer of replacement and demand a refund. Refunds shall be made to the consumer and lienholder, if any, as their interests appear on the records of ownership maintained by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles. In the event that the consumer accepts an offer to replace the motor vehicle in lieu of a refund, it shall be the manufacturer’s responsibility to insure that any lien on the returned motor vehicle is transferred to the replacement vehicle.
- A consumer who leases a new motor vehicle shall have the same remedies against a manufacturer under this section as a consumer who purchases a new motor vehicle. If it is determined that the lessee is entitled to a refund pursuant to subsection a. of this section, the consumer shall return the leased vehicle to the lessor or manufacturer and the consumer’s lease agreement with the motor vehicle lessor shall be terminated and no penalty for early termination shall be assessed. The manufacturer shall provide the consumer with a full refund of the amount actually paid by the consumer under the lease agreement, including any additional charges as set forth in subsection a. of this section if actually paid by the consumer, less a reasonable allowance for vehicle use. The manufacturer shall provide the motor vehicle lessor with a full refund of the vehicle’s original purchase price plus any unrecovered interest expense, less the amount actually paid by the consumer under the agreement. Refunds shall be made to the lessor and lienholder, if any, as their interests appear on the records of ownership maintained by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles.
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 4. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-33. Presumption of inability to correct noncomformity; written notification
- It is presumed that a manufacturer or its dealer is unable to repair or correct a nonconformity within a reasonable time if, within the first 18,000 miles of operation or during the period of two years following the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to a consumer, whichever is the earlier date:
- Substantially the same nonconformity has been subject to repair three or more times by the manufacturer or its dealer and the nonconformity continues to exist; or
- The motor vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for one or more nonconformities for a cumulative total of 20 or more calendar days sin ce the original delivery of the motor vehicle and a nonconformity continues to exist.
- The presumption contained in subsection a. of this section shall a pply against a manufacturer only if the manufacturer has received written no tification, by or on behalf of the consumer, by certified mail return receip t requested, of a potential claim pursuant to the provisions of this act and has had one opportunity to repair or correct the defect or condition within 10 calendar days following receipt of the notification. Notification by the consumer shall take place any time after the motor vehicle has had substant ially the same nonconformity subject to repair two or more times or has been out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of 20 or more calendar days.
- The two-year term and the 20-day period specified in this section shall be extended by any period of time during which repair services are not available to the consumer because of a war, invasion or strike, or a fire, flood, or other natural disaster.
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 5. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-34. Statements to consumers
- At the time of purchase in the State of New Jersey, the manufacturer through its dealer, or at the time of lease in the State of New Jersey, the lessor, shall provide directly to the consumer the following written statement on a separate piece of paper, in 10-point bold-face type: “IMPORTANT: IF THIS VEHICLE IS DEFECTIVE, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW TO A REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OR YOUR LEASE PAYMENTS. FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS AND REMEDIES UNDER THE RELEVANT LAW, CONTACT THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS.”
- Each time a consumer’s motor vehicle is returned from being examined or repaired during the period specified in section 3 of this act, the manufacturer through its dealer shall provide to the consumer an itemized, legible statement of repair which indicates any diagnosis made and all work performed on the vehicle and provides information including, but not limited to, the following: a general description of the problem reported by the consumer or an identification of the problem reported by the consumer or an identification of the defect or condition; the amount charged for parts and the amount charged for labor, if paid for by the consumer; the date and the odometer reading when the vehicle was submitted for repair; and the date and odometer reading when the vehicle was made available to the consumer.
- Failure to comply with the provisions of this section constitutes an unlawful practice pursuant to section 2 of P.L. 1960, c. 39 (C. 56:8-2).
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 6. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-35. Sale, leasing of returned motor vehicle 7.
- If a motor vehicle is returned to the manufacturer under the provisions of this act or a similar statute of another state or as the result of a legal action or an informal dispute settlement procedure, it shall not be resold or re-leased in New Jersey unless:
- The manufacturer provides to the dealer or lessor and the dealer or lessor provides to the consumer the following written statement on a separate piece of paper, in 10-point bold-face type: “IMPORTANT: THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY AND THE NONCONFORMITY WAS NOT CORRECTED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AS PROVIDED BY LAW;”
- The dealer or lessor obtains from the consumer a signed receipt certifying, in a conspicuous and understandable manner, that the written statement required under this subsection has been provided. The director shall prescribe the form of the receipt. The dealer or lessor may fulfill his obligation to obtain a signed receipt under this paragraph by making such a notation, in a conspicuous and understandable manner, on the vehicle buyer order form accompanying the sale or lease of that vehicle; and
- The dealer or lessor, in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of P.L.1993, c.21 (C.39:10-9.3), notifies the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Law and Public Safety of the sale or transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle.
- Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing an obligation on a dealer or lessor to determine whether a manufacturer is in compliance with the terms of this section nor shall it be construed as imposing liability on a dealer or lessor for the failure of a manufacturer to comply with the terms of this section.
- Failure to comply with the provisions of this section constitutes an unlawful practice pursuant to section 2 of P.L.1960, c.39 (C.56:8-2).
L.1988,c.123,s.7; amended 1993,c.21,s.2. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-36. Informal dispute settlement procedure
- If a manufacturer has established, or participates in, an informal dispute settlement procedure pursuant to section 110 of Pub. L. 93-637 (15 U.S.C. s.2310) and the rules promulgated thereunder, or the requirements of this section, a consumer may submit a dispute regarding motor vehicle nonconformities to the dispute settlement body provided by that procedure but a consumer shall not be required to first participate in the informal dispute settlement procedure before participating in the division’s summary hearing procedure under this act.
- If a consumer chooses to use a manufacturer’s informal dispute settlement procedure established pursuant to this section, the findings and decisions of the dispute settlement body shall state in writing whether the consumer is entitled to a refund under the presumptions and criteria set out in this act and the findings and decisions shall be admissible against the consumer and the manufacturer in any legal action.
- If the dispute settlement body determines that a consumer is entitled to relief under this act, the consumer shall be entitled to a refund as authorized by section 4 of this act.
- In any informal dispute settlement procedure established pursuant to this section:
- Participating arbitrators shall be trained in arbitration and familiar with the provisions of this act.
- Documents shall not be submitted to any dispute settlement body unless the documents have been provided to each of the parties in the dispute at least seven days prior to commencement of the dispute settlement hearing. The parties shall be given the opportunity to comment on the documents in writing or with oral presentation.
- No party shall participate in the informal dispute settlement procedure unless all other parties are also present and given an opportunity to be heard, or unless the other parties consent to proceeding without their presence and participation.
- A consumer 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 manufacturer’s informal dispute settlement procedure. If the dispute settlement body rules in favor of the consumer, his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees shall also be awarded.
- A dispute shall not be heard if there has been a recent attempt by the manufacturer to repair a consumer’s vehicle, but no response has yet been received by the dispute settlement body from the consumer as to whether the repairs were successfully completed. This provision shall not prejudice a consumer’s right under this section.
- The manufacturer shall provide, and the dispute settlement body shall consider, any relevant technical service bulletins which have been issued by the manufacturer regarding motor vehicles of the same make and model as the vehicle that is the subject of the dispute.
- Any manufacturer who establishes, or participates in, an informal dispute settlement procedure, whether it meets the requirements of this section or not, shall maintain, and forward to the director at six month intervals, the following records:
- The number of purchase price and lease price refunds requested, the number awarded by the dispute settlement body, the amount of each award and the number of awards satisfied in a timely manner;
- The number of awards in which additional repairs or a warranty extension was the most prominent remedy, the amount or value of each award, and the number of awards satisfied in a timely manner;
- The number and total dollar amount of awards in which some form of reimbursement for expenses or compensation for losses was the most prominent remedy, the amount or value of each award and the number of awards satisfied in a timely manner; and
- The average number of days from the date of a consumer’s initial request to use the manufacturer’s informal dispute settlement procedure until the date of the decision and the average number of days from the date of the decision to the date on which performance of the award was satisfied.
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 8. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-37. Dispute resolution 9.
- A consumer shall have the option of submitting any dispute arising under section 4 of this act to the division for resolution. The director may establish a filing fee, to be paid by the consumer, fixed at a level not to exceed the cost for the proper administration and enforcement of this act. This fee shall be recoverable as a cost under section 14 of this act. Upon application by the consumer and payment of any filing fee, the manufacturer shall submit to the State hearing procedure. The filing of the notice in subsection b. of section 5 of P.L.1988, c.123 (C.56:12-33) shall be a prerequisite to the filing of an application under this section.
- The director shall review a consumer’s application for dispute resolution and accept eligible disputes for referral to the Office of Administrative Law for a summary hearing to be conducted in accordance with special rules adopted pursuant to the “Administrative Procedure Act,” P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), by the Office of Administrative Law in consultation with the director. Immediately upon acceptance of a consumer’s application for dispute resolution, the director shall contact the parties and arrange for a hearing date with the Clerk of the Office of Administrative Law. The hearing date shall, to the greatest extent possible, be convenient to all parties, but shall be no later than 20 days from the date the consumer’s application is accepted, unless a later date is agreed upon by the consumer. The Office of Administrative Law shall render a decision, in writing, to the director within 20 days of the conclusion of the summary hearing. The decision shall provide a brief summary of the findings of fact, appropriate remedies pursuant to this act, and a specific date for completion of all awarded remedies. The director, upon a review of the proposed decision submitted by the administrative law judge, shall adopt, reject, or modify the decision no later than 15 days after receipt of the decision. Unless the director modifies or rejects the decision within the 15-day period, the decision of the administrative law judge shall be deemed adopted as the final decision of the director. If the manufacturer unreasonably fails to comply with the decision within the specified time period, the manufacturer shall be liable for penalties in the amount of $5,000.00 for each day the manufacturer unreasonably fails to comply, commencing on the day after the specified date for completion of all awarded remedies.
- The Office of Administrative Law is authorized to issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, papers and records relevant to the dispute.
- A manufacturer or consumer may appeal a final decision to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. An appeal by a manufacturer shall not be heard unless the petition for the appeal is accompanied by a bond in a principal sum equal to the money award made by the administrative law judge plus $2,500.00 for anticipated attorney’s fees and other costs, secured by cash or its equivalent, payable to the consumer. The liability of the surety of any bond filed pursuant to this section shall be limited to the indemnification of the consumer in the action. The bond shall not limit or impair any right of recovery otherwise available pursuant to law, nor shall the amount of the bond be relevant in determining the amount of recovery to which the consumer shall be entitled. If a final decision resulting in a refund to the consumer is upheld by the court, recovery by the consumer shall include reimbursement for actual expenses incurred by the consumer for the rental of a motor vehicle equivalent to the consumer’s motor vehicle and limited to the period of time after which the consumer’s motor vehicle was offered to the manufacturer for return under this act, except in those cases in which the manufacturer made a comparable vehicle available to the consumer free of charge during that period. If the court finds that the manufacturer had no reasonable basis for its appeal or that the appeal was frivolous, the court shall award treble damages to the consumer. Failure of the Office of Administrative Law to render a written decision within 20 days of the conclusion of the summary hearing as required by subsection b. of this section shall not be a basis for appeal.
- The Attorney General shall monitor the implementation and effectiveness of this act and report to the Legislature after three years of operation, at which time a recommendation shall be made either to continue under the procedures set forth in this act or to make such modifications as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this act.
L.1988,c.123,s.9; amended 1993,c.21,s.4. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-38. Statistics 10.
- The Division of Consumer Affairs shall maintain an index of all motor vehicle disputes by make and model. The division shall, at six-month intervals, compile and maintain statistics indicating the record of manufacturer compliance with any settlement procedure decisions. The statistics shall be public record.
- A manufacturer shall provide to the division all information on private arbitration or private buy-back programs maintained or instituted by the manufacturer. The information shall include the type and number of vehicles to which these programs apply and the reasons for establishing and maintaining the programs. The manufacturer shall provide the division with updated information at six month intervals.
L.1988,c.123,s.10; amended 1993,c.21,s.5. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-39. Decision binding
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 11. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-40. Affirmative defense
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 12. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-41. Pleading
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 13. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-42. Attorney, expert fees; costs 14.
L.1988,c.123,s.14; amended 1993,c.21,s.6. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-43. Use of funds
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 15. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-44. Inherent design defect
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 16. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-45. Proceedings
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 17. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-46. No liability, cause of action
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 18. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-47. No limitation on rights
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 19.. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-48. Agreements void
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 20. New Jersey Lemon law 56:12-49. Rules, regulations
L. 1988, c. 123, s. 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 New Jersey 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 New Jersey lemon laws on these pages is provided by T. Michael Flinn, attorney.