1. Since new cars sold in Vermont are
covered
by express warranties that can't be disclaimed, and an implied warranty
of merchantability that can't be disclaimed or limited, why was it
necessary
to pass a lemon law?
-----At some point, it's unreasonable to
ask consumers to keep brining a new car in for repair (policy decision)
-----car dealers
actually supported the law, since it shifts burden (and consumers'
anger) to manufacturers
2. Every time I bring my car back to
the
dealership for repair, they are required by law to give me
a. free parts and labor
b. a written warranty
c. a copy of
the repair order
d. a rental vehicle
-----4172 (d)
3. Why? What's the policy behind this
requirement?
-----Consumer needs information as evidence
if he/she needs to file a claim
4. A vehicle is considered a "lemon"
under
the law if
a. after a
reasonable number of attempts
at repair, it does not conform to the manufacturer's express warranty
b. the same defect has been subject to
repair three times or more, with the first repair occurring during the
express warranty period
c. the vehicle has been out of service
for 30 or more days during the express warranty period
d. the consumer is dissatisfied with any
repair attempts
-----Trick question?
-----4172 (e) --
first line
-----4172 (g) (1)
and (2) creat presumptions
5. True or False: the law does not
apply
if the consumer is not the first owner of the vehicle.
-----Law is called the "New Motor Vehicle
Arbitration" Act
-----Industry
fought for years against a used car lemon law
-----but see 4171
(definititions)
-----(2) defines consumer to include anyone to whom the vehicle is
transferred during express warranty
-----(9) defines "new motor vehicle" as being under the manufacturer's
warranty
-----issue is whether the first repair attempt
occurred during the express warranty period (as we'll see in a minute)
-----(I aregued for years that
subsequent ownsers should be able to accumulate previous owners'
repairs; to no avail)
6. The law applies where there are
defects
that
a. substantially impair the use of the
vehicle
b. substantially impair the market value
of the vehicle
c. substantially impair the safety of
the vehicle
d. any of the
above
e. none of the above; the law applies
to all defects
----4172 (e) (second clause)
-----4172 (f)
7. True or false: the 30-days
"out of
service"
must be consecutive.
-----4172 (g) (2)
-----"cumulative"
8. A consumer may not use the lemon law
process if she
a. has stopped making payments on the
vehicle
b. previously used a manufacturer's
dispute
resolution process
c. both of the
above are true
d. none of the above are true
-----4173 (a) last sentence
-----4173 (b)
-----Explain role
of manufacturers' arbitration boards and problems with them
Questions 9-13 relate to the following facts: Martha bought a new Kia Sportage on July 1, 2002. She paid $16,000. It came with a manufacturer's warranty good for 3 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first. In June, 2005 the brakes failed while Martha was driving on the interstate and she narrowly avoided a serious accident. The Kia dealer replaced the brake system. The odometer reading was 25,000. In mid-July, 2005 (after the expiration of the express warranty) the brakes failed again. Kia again replaced the brake system. In August, they failed again. The odometer reading was 30,000. Martha did not go back to Kia for another repair. Instead, Martha filed a claim with the Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board (MVAB) under Vermont's lemon law.
9. True or False: Martha is likely to
lose
the case because there were only two repair attempts.
-----If it's a safety issue, may
only require one repair (board has so ruled in past)
-----presumption
that three repairs makes vehicle a lemon, but doesn't require three
repairs
10. What about the fact that only the
first repair attempt occurred during the warranty period?
-----4172 (g) (1)
-----only the first
repair must be during the warranty period
11. True
or False: After filing, Kia is
entitled to one additional attempt to repair the vehicle.
-----4173 (d)
12. If Martha wins, she is entitled to
a. a replacement vehicle
b. a refund
c. either of
the above, at her option
d. either of the above, at Kia's option
-----4172 (e)
-----I'm always
surprised when consumers opt for a replacement vehicle
-----it may
difficult if the vehicle is several years old
13. If Martha receives a refund, the
amount
would be approximately
a. $16,000
b. $8,000
c. $12,000
d. $1,600
-----4172 (e) establishes formula for refund
-----based on
mileage at first repair as numerator and 100,000 miles as denominator
to determine "reasonable allowance for use"
-----here,
25,000/100,000 = 25% x $16,000 = $4,000 subtracted for use
14. According to the Vermont Supreme
Court's
decision in Pecor v. General Motors, the defect in the vehicle
must
be present at the time of filing the claim
a. only if the consumer is filing under
the 30 days' out of use provision
b. only if the
consumer is filing under
the three repair attempts provision
c. in both cases
d. in neither case must it be present
-----this was the sole issue in the case
-----4172 (g)
(1) says it has to exist; 4172 (g) (2) is silent on that
-----as the court
said (last sentence)--"if there were no continuing problems, the
automobile would have been made available ....prior to the 30th day"
Questions 15-19 relate to the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in Muzzy v. Chevrolet
15. How many repair attempts had GM
made
at the time Muzzy filed with the MVAB?
-----five
16. Was there yet another repair
attempt
made by GM? What was the result?
-----yes; dealer installed a "special valve"
-----GM claimed it
was fixed
17. What did the Court say was the
"main
issue in this case"?
-----whether the consumer's claim must be
terminated if the manufacturer's last repair appears to be successful
-----related to
that: whether the standard of "satisfaction" in 4173 (d) is a
subjective or objective standard
18. What were the four reasons the
Court
gave for its conclusion?
-----1. statutory construction (p. 3)
-----what does that mean?
-----Look to the language of the statute and see if
it's clear
-----admitted it's not
"unambiguous" in this case
-----cited McClure case for meaning of
"satisfaction"
-----also noted that interpretation suggested
by GM was rejected by legislature (really more legislative intent)
19. What do you think about the
fairness
of the decision? Is it fair to the manufacturer?