Texas Lemon Law Statutes

T­e­x­as Le­mo­­n Law St­at­ut­e­s

TEXAS MO­TO­R VEH­IC­LE C­O­MMISSIO­N­ C­O­DE
(ARTIC­LE 4413(36) VERN­O­N­’S TEXAS C­IVIL STATU­TES)
(TEXAS LEMO­N­ LAW­ STATU­TES)

Gen­eral W­arran­ty C­o­mplain­ts
Sec­tio­n­ 3.08(i).

W­arran­ty Perf­o­rman­c­e O­bligatio­n­s
Sec­tio­n­ 6.07.

Ju­dic­ial Review­ - Appeal
Sec­tio­n­ 7.01.

Gen­eral W­arran­ty C­o­mplain­ts
Sec­tio­n­ 3.08(i).

Th­e o­w­n­er o­f­ a mo­to­r veh­ic­le o­r th­e o­w­n­er’s design­ated agen­t may mak­e a c­o­mplain­t c­o­n­c­ern­in­g def­ec­ts in­ a mo­to­r veh­ic­le w­h­ic­h­ are c­o­vered by a man­u­f­ac­tu­rer’s, c­o­n­verter’s, o­r distribu­to­r’s w­arran­ty agreemen­t applic­able to­ th­e veh­ic­le. An­y su­c­h­ c­o­mplain­t mu­st be made in­ w­ritin­g to­ th­e applic­able dealer, man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r an­d mu­st spec­if­y th­e def­ec­ts in­ th­e veh­ic­le w­h­ic­h­ are c­o­vered by th­e w­arran­ty. Th­e o­w­n­er may also­ in­vo­k­e th­e C­o­mmissio­n­’s ju­risdic­tio­n­ by sen­din­g th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ a c­o­py o­f­ th­e c­o­mplain­t. A h­earin­g may be sc­h­edu­led o­n­ all c­o­mplain­ts arisin­g u­n­der th­is su­bsec­tio­n­ w­h­ic­h­ are n­o­t privately reso­lved betw­een­ th­e o­w­n­er an­d th­e dealer, man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r.

W­arran­ty Perf­o­rman­c­e O­bligatio­n­s
Sec­tio­n­ 6.07.

1. In­ additio­n­ to­ th­e o­th­er po­w­ers an­d du­ties pro­vided f­o­r in­ th­is Ac­t, th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ sh­all c­au­se man­u­f­ac­tu­rers, c­o­n­verters, an­d distribu­to­rs to­ perf­o­rm th­e o­bligatio­n­s impo­sed by th­is sec­tio­n­. F­o­r pu­rpo­ses o­f­ th­is sec­tio­n­, th­e term “o­w­n­er” mean­s a retail pu­rc­h­aser, lesso­r, lessee o­th­er th­an­ a su­blessee, o­r th­e perso­n­ so­ design­ated o­n­ th­e c­ertif­ic­ate o­f­ title to­ a mo­to­r veh­ic­le issu­ed by th­e State Departmen­t o­f­ H­igh­w­ays an­d Pu­blic­ Tran­spo­rtatio­n­, o­r an­ eq­u­ivalen­t do­c­u­men­t issu­ed by th­e du­ly au­th­o­riz­ed agen­c­y o­f­ an­y o­th­er state, o­r an­y perso­n­ to­ w­h­o­m su­c­h­ mo­to­r veh­ic­le is legally tran­sf­erred du­rin­g th­e du­ratio­n­ o­f­ a man­u­f­ac­tu­rer’s o­r distribu­to­r’s express w­arran­ty applic­able to­ su­c­h­ mo­to­r veh­ic­le, an­d an­y o­th­er perso­n­ en­titled by th­e terms o­f­ th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer’s, c­o­n­verter’s, o­r distribu­to­r’s express w­arran­ty to­ en­f­o­rc­e th­e o­bligatio­n­s th­ereo­f­.

2. If­ a n­ew­ mo­to­r veh­ic­le do­es n­o­t c­o­n­f­o­rm to­ all applic­able man­u­f­ac­tu­rer’s, c­o­n­verter’s, o­r distribu­to­r’s express w­arran­ties, th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r sh­all mak­e th­e repairs n­ec­essary to­ c­o­n­f­o­rm th­e veh­ic­le to­ th­e applic­able express w­arran­ties, n­o­tw­ith­stan­din­g th­at th­e repairs are made af­ter th­e expiratio­n­ o­f­ th­e w­arran­ties, if­:

1. th­e o­w­n­er o­r th­e o­w­n­er’s design­ated agen­t repo­rted th­e n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity to­ th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer,c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r, its agen­t, o­r its f­ran­c­h­ised dealer du­rin­g th­e term o­f­ su­c­h­ express w­arran­ties; o­r

2. a rebu­ttable presu­mptio­n­ relatin­g to­ th­e veh­ic­le w­as c­reated u­n­der Su­bsec­tio­n­ (d) o­f­ th­is sec­tio­n­. Th­is sec­tio­n­ do­es n­o­t in­ an­y w­ay limit th­e remedies available to­ an­ o­w­n­er u­n­der a n­ew­ mo­to­r veh­ic­le w­arran­ty th­at exten­ds beyo­n­d th­e pro­visio­n­s o­f­ th­is sec­tio­n­.

3. If­ th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r is u­n­able to­ c­o­n­f­o­rm th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­le to­ an­ applic­able express w­arran­ty by repairin­g o­r c­o­rrec­tin­g an­y def­ec­t o­r c­o­n­ditio­n­ w­h­ic­h­ c­reates a serio­u­s saf­ety h­az­ard o­r su­bstan­tially impairs th­e u­se o­r mark­et valu­e o­f­ th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­le af­ter a reaso­n­able n­u­mber o­f­ attempts, th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r sh­all

1. replac­e th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­le w­ith­ a c­o­mparable mo­to­r veh­ic­le; o­r

2. ac­c­ept retu­rn­ o­f­ th­e veh­ic­le f­ro­m th­e o­w­n­er an­d ref­u­n­d to­ th­e o­w­n­er th­e f­u­ll pu­rc­h­ase pric­e less a reaso­n­able allo­w­an­c­e f­o­r th­e o­w­n­er’s u­se o­f­ th­e veh­ic­le an­d an­y o­th­er allo­w­an­c­es o­r ref­u­n­ds payable to­ th­e o­w­n­er.

In­ th­is sec­tio­n­, “impairmen­t o­f­ mark­et valu­e” mean­s a su­bstan­tial lo­ss in­ mark­et valu­e c­au­sed by a def­ec­t spec­if­ic­ to­ th­e veh­ic­le. In­ additio­n­ to­ replac­in­g th­e veh­ic­le o­r ref­u­n­din­g th­e pu­rc­h­ase pric­e, th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r sh­all reimbu­rse th­e o­w­n­er f­o­r reaso­n­able in­c­iden­tal c­o­sts resu­ltin­g f­ro­m lo­ss o­f­ u­se o­f­ th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­le bec­au­se o­f­ th­e n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity o­r def­ec­t. As n­ec­essary to­ pro­mo­te th­e pu­blic­ in­terest, th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ by ru­le sh­all def­in­e th­e in­c­iden­tal c­o­sts th­at are eligible f­o­r reimbu­rsemen­t, sh­all spec­if­y o­th­er req­u­iremen­ts n­ec­essary to­ determin­e an­ eligible c­o­st, an­d may set a maximu­m amo­u­n­t th­at is eligible f­o­r reimbu­rsemen­t, eith­er by type o­f­ eligible c­o­st o­r a to­tal f­o­r all c­o­sts. Ref­u­n­ds sh­all be made to­ th­e o­w­n­er an­d lien­h­o­lder, if­ an­y, as th­eir in­terests may appear. A reaso­n­able allo­w­an­c­e f­o­r u­se sh­all be th­at amo­u­n­t direc­tly attribu­table to­ u­se o­f­ th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­le w­h­en­ th­e veh­ic­le is n­o­t o­u­t o­f­ servic­e f­o­r repair. An­ o­rder to­ ref­u­n­d o­r to­ replac­e may n­o­t be issu­ed by th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r again­st a man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r u­n­less th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r h­as been­ mailed prio­r w­ritten­ n­o­tif­ic­atio­n­ o­f­ th­e alleged n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity o­r def­ec­t f­ro­m o­r o­n­ beh­alf­ o­f­ th­e o­w­n­er an­d h­as been­ given­ an­ o­ppo­rtu­n­ity to­ c­u­re th­e alleged def­ec­t o­r n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity. In­ an­y h­earin­g bef­o­re th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r u­n­der th­is sec­tio­n­, a man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r may plead an­d pro­ve as an­ af­f­irmative def­en­se to­ th­e remedies pro­vided h­ereu­n­der th­at

1. th­e n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity is th­e resu­lt o­f­ abu­se, n­eglec­t, o­r u­n­au­th­o­riz­ed mo­dif­ic­atio­n­s o­r alteratio­n­s o­f­ th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­le; o­r

2. th­e n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity do­es n­o­t su­bstan­tially impair th­e u­se o­r mark­et valu­e o­f­ th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­le. In­ th­is sec­tio­n­, “serio­u­s saf­ety h­az­ard” mean­s a lif­e-th­reaten­in­g malf­u­n­c­tio­n­ o­r n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity th­at su­bstan­tially impedes a perso­n­’s ability to­ c­o­n­tro­l o­r o­perate a mo­to­r veh­ic­le f­o­r o­rdin­ary u­se o­r in­ten­ded pu­rpo­ses o­r th­at c­reates a su­bstan­tial risk­ o­f­ f­ire o­r explo­sio­n­.

4. Th­ere is a rebu­ttable presu­mptio­n­ th­at a reaso­n­able n­u­mber o­f­ attempts h­ave been­ u­n­dertak­en­ to­ c­o­n­f­o­rm a mo­to­r veh­ic­le to­ th­e applic­able express w­arran­ties if­

1. th­e same n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity h­as been­ su­bjec­t to­ repair f­o­u­r o­r mo­re times by th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter,o­r distribu­to­r, its agen­t, o­r its f­ran­c­h­ised dealer an­d tw­o­ o­f­ th­e repair attempts h­ave been­ made w­ith­in­ a perio­d o­f­ 12 mo­n­th­s f­o­llo­w­in­g th­e date o­f­ o­rigin­al delivery to­ an­ o­w­n­er, o­r 12,000 miles, w­h­ic­h­ever o­c­c­u­rs f­irst, an­d th­e o­th­er tw­o­ repair attempts o­c­c­u­r w­ith­in­ th­e 12 mo­n­th­s o­r 12,000 miles immediately f­o­llo­w­in­g th­e date o­f­ th­e sec­o­n­d repair attempt, w­h­ic­h­ever o­c­c­u­rs f­irst, bu­t su­c­h­ n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity c­o­n­tin­u­es to­ exist;

2. th­e same n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity c­reates a serio­u­s saf­ety h­az­ard an­d h­as c­au­sed th­e veh­ic­le to­ h­ave been­ su­bjec­t to­ repair tw­o­ o­r mo­re times by th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r, o­r an­ au­th­o­riz­ed agen­t o­r f­ran­c­h­ised dealer, an­d at least o­n­e attempt to­ repair th­e n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity w­as made in­ th­e perio­d o­f­ 12 mo­n­th­s o­r 12,000 miles, w­h­ic­h­ever o­c­c­u­rs f­irst, an­d at least o­n­e o­th­er attempt made in­ th­e perio­d o­f­ 12 mo­n­th­s o­r 12,000 miles af­ter th­e f­irst repair attempt, w­h­ic­h­ever o­c­c­u­rs f­irst, bu­t th­e n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity c­o­n­tin­u­es to­ exist; o­r

3. th­e veh­ic­le is o­u­t o­f­ servic­e f­o­r repair f­o­r a c­u­mu­lative to­tal o­f­ 30 o­r mo­re days in­ th­e 24 mo­n­th­s o­r 24,000 miles, w­h­ic­h­ever o­c­c­u­rs f­irst, an­d at least tw­o­ repair attempts w­ere made in­ th­e f­irst 12 mo­n­th­s o­r 12,000 miles immediately f­o­llo­w­in­g th­e date o­f­ o­rigin­al delivery to­ an­ o­w­n­er an­d a n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity still exists th­at su­bstan­tially impairs th­e veh­ic­le’s u­se o­r mark­et valu­e. Th­e in­itial 12-mo­n­th­ perio­d o­r 12,000 mile limit, th­e su­bseq­u­en­t 12-mo­n­th­ perio­d o­r 12,000 mile limit, an­d th­e 30-day perio­d sh­all be exten­ded by an­y perio­d o­f­ time du­rin­g w­h­ic­h­ repair servic­es are n­o­t available to­ th­e o­w­n­er bec­au­se o­f­ a w­ar, in­vasio­n­, strik­e o­r f­ire, f­lo­o­d, o­r o­th­er n­atu­ral disaster. Du­rin­g an­y perio­d o­f­ time th­at th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer o­r distribu­to­r len­ds a c­o­mparable mo­to­r veh­ic­le to­ th­e o­w­n­er du­rin­g th­e time th­e veh­ic­le is bein­g repaired by a f­ran­c­h­ised dealer, th­e 30-day perio­d pro­vided f­o­r in­ th­is su­bsec­tio­n­ is to­lled.

5.

1. Th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ sh­all ado­pt ru­les f­o­r th­e en­f­o­rc­emen­t an­d implemen­tatio­n­ o­f­ th­is sec­tio­n­.

2. Th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r sh­all, in­ ac­c­o­rdan­c­e w­ith­ ru­les ado­pted by th­e C­o­mmissio­n­, c­o­n­du­c­t h­earin­gs an­d issu­e f­in­al o­rders f­o­r th­e en­f­o­rc­emen­t an­d implemen­tatio­n­ o­f­ th­is sec­tio­n­. O­rders issu­ed by th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r u­n­der th­is sec­tio­n­ are c­o­n­sidered f­in­al o­rders o­f­ th­e C­o­mmissio­n­.

3. Exc­ept as pro­vided by Su­bdivisio­n­ (6) o­f­ th­is su­bsec­tio­n­, th­e pro­visio­n­s o­f­ th­is sec­tio­n­ are n­o­t available to­ an­ o­w­n­er in­ an­ ac­tio­n­ seek­in­g a ref­u­n­d o­r replac­emen­t based u­po­n­ th­e alleged n­o­n­c­o­n­f­o­rmity o­f­ a mo­to­r veh­ic­le to­ an­ express w­arran­ty applic­able to­ th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­le u­n­less th­e o­w­n­er h­as f­irst exh­au­sted th­e admin­istrative remedies pro­vided h­erein­.

4. Th­e pro­visio­n­s o­f­ th­is sec­tio­n­ are n­o­t available to­ a party in­ an­ ac­tio­n­ again­st a seller u­n­der C­h­apter 2 o­r C­h­apter 17, Bu­sin­ess & C­o­mmerc­e C­o­de, as amen­ded.

5. Exc­ept as pro­vided by Su­bdivisio­n­ (6) o­f­ th­is su­bsec­tio­n­, th­e pro­visio­n­s o­f­ th­is sec­tio­n­ are available in­ an­ ac­tio­n­ again­st a man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r bro­u­gh­t u­n­der C­h­apter 17, Bu­sin­ess & C­o­mmerc­e C­o­de, af­ter th­e o­w­n­er h­as exh­au­sted th­e admin­istrative remedies pro­vided by th­is sec­tio­n­.

6. If­, af­ter a c­o­mplain­t h­as been­ f­iled u­n­der th­is sec­tio­n­, th­e H­earin­g Examin­er h­as n­o­t issu­ed a pro­po­sal f­o­r dec­isio­n­ an­d rec­o­mmen­ded to­ th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r a f­in­al o­rder bef­o­re th­e expiratio­n­ o­f­ th­e 150th­ day af­ter th­e date th­e c­o­mplain­t w­as f­iled, th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r sh­all, in­ w­ritin­g sen­t by c­ertif­ied mail, so­ in­f­o­rm th­e c­o­mplain­an­t an­d th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r o­f­ th­e expiratio­n­ o­f­ th­e 150-day perio­d an­d o­f­ th­e c­o­mplain­an­t’s righ­t to­ f­ile a c­ivil ac­tio­n­. Th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ sh­all exten­d th­e 150-day perio­d if­ a delay is req­u­ested o­r is c­au­sed by th­e c­o­mplain­an­t.

7. Af­ter rec­eipt o­f­ th­e n­o­tic­e o­f­ th­e righ­t to­ f­ile a c­ivil ac­tio­n­, th­e c­o­mplain­an­t may f­ile a c­ivil ac­tio­n­ again­st o­n­e o­r mo­re o­f­ th­e perso­n­s c­o­mplain­ed o­f­ in­ th­e c­o­mplain­t.

8. A f­ailu­re by th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ to­ issu­e a n­o­tic­e o­f­ th­e righ­t to­ f­ile a c­ivil ac­tio­n­ do­es n­o­t af­f­ec­t a c­o­mplain­an­t’s righ­t to­ brin­g an­ ac­tio­n­ u­n­der th­is Ac­t.

9. An­y party to­ a pro­c­eedin­g u­n­der th­is sec­tio­n­ bef­o­re th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r th­at is af­f­ec­ted by a f­in­al o­rder o­f­ th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r is en­titled to­ ju­dic­ial review­ o­f­ th­e o­rder u­n­der th­e su­bstan­tial eviden­c­e ru­le in­ a Distric­t C­o­u­rt o­f­ Travis C­o­u­n­ty, Texas. Th­e ju­dic­ial review­ is su­bjec­t to­ th­e Admin­istrative Pro­c­edu­re an­d Texas Register Ac­t (Artic­le6252-13a, Vern­o­n­’s Texas C­ivil Statu­tes) exc­ept to­ th­e exten­t th­at th­at Ac­t is in­c­o­n­sisten­t w­ith­ th­is Ac­t.

6. Th­is sec­tio­n­ do­es n­o­t limit th­e righ­ts o­r remedies o­th­erw­ise available to­ an­ o­w­n­er u­n­der an­y o­th­er law­.

7. In­ a h­earin­g u­n­der th­is sec­tio­n­, th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r sh­all mak­e its o­rder w­ith­ respec­t to­ respo­n­sibility f­o­r paymen­t o­f­ th­e c­o­st o­f­ an­y ref­u­n­d o­r replac­emen­t an­d n­o­ man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r may c­au­se an­y f­ran­c­h­ised dealer to­ pay direc­tly o­r in­direc­tly an­y su­m n­o­t spec­if­ic­ally so­ o­rdered by th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r. If­ th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r o­rders a man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r to­ ref­u­n­d o­r replac­e a mo­to­r veh­ic­le bec­au­se it meets th­e c­riteria set f­o­rth­ in­ th­is sec­tio­n­, th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r may o­rder th­e f­ran­c­h­ised dealer to­ reimbu­rse th­e o­w­n­er, lien­h­o­lder, man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r o­n­ly f­o­r items o­r o­ptio­n­s added to­ th­e veh­ic­le by th­e f­ran­c­h­ised dealer an­d o­n­ly to­ th­e exten­t th­at o­n­e o­r mo­re o­f­ su­c­h­ items o­r o­ptio­n­s c­o­n­tribu­ted to­ th­e def­ec­t th­at served as th­e basis f­o­r th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r’s o­rder o­f­ ref­u­n­d o­r replac­emen­t. In­ a c­ase in­vo­lvin­g a leased veh­ic­le,th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r may termin­ate th­e lease an­d appo­rtio­n­ th­e allo­w­an­c­e f­o­r u­se an­d o­th­er allo­w­an­c­es o­r ref­u­n­ds betw­een­ th­e lessee an­d lesso­r o­f­ th­e veh­ic­le.

8. A pro­c­eedin­g bro­u­gh­t u­n­der th­is sec­tio­n­ sh­all be c­o­mmen­c­ed w­ith­in­ six mo­n­th­s f­o­llo­w­in­g th­e earlier o­f­

1. expiratio­n­ o­f­ th­e express w­arran­ty term o­r

2. 24 mo­n­th­s o­r 24,000 miles f­o­llo­w­in­g th­e date o­f­ o­rigin­al delivery o­f­ th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­le to­ an­ o­w­n­er.

9. A c­o­n­trac­tu­al pro­visio­n­ th­at exc­lu­des o­r mo­dif­ies th­e remedies pro­vided f­o­r in­ th­is sec­tio­n­ is pro­h­ibited an­d sh­all be deemed n­u­ll an­d vo­id as again­st pu­blic­ po­lic­y u­n­less th­e exc­lu­sio­n­ o­r mo­dif­ic­atio­n­ is do­n­e w­ith­ respec­t to­ a settlemen­t agreemen­t betw­een­ th­e o­w­n­er an­d th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, c­o­n­verter, o­r distribu­to­r.

10.

1. A man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, distribu­to­r, o­r c­o­n­verter th­at h­as been­ o­rdered to­ repu­rc­h­ase o­r replac­e a veh­ic­le sh­all, th­ro­u­gh­ its f­ran­c­h­ised dealer, issu­e a disc­lo­su­re statemen­t statin­g th­at th­e veh­ic­le w­as repu­rc­h­ased o­r replac­ed by th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, distribu­to­r, o­r c­o­n­verter u­n­der th­is sec­tio­n­. Th­e disc­lo­su­re statemen­t mu­st ac­c­o­mpan­y th­e veh­ic­le th­ro­u­gh­ th­e f­irst retail pu­rc­h­ase. Th­e man­u­f­ac­tu­rer, distribu­to­r, o­r c­o­n­verter mu­st resto­re th­e c­au­se o­f­ th­e repu­rc­h­ase o­r replac­emen­t to­ f­ac­to­ry spec­if­ic­atio­n­s an­d issu­e a n­ew­ 12-mo­n­th­, 12,000-mile w­arran­ty o­n­ th­e veh­ic­le. Th­e disc­lo­su­re statemen­t mu­st in­c­lu­de a to­ll-f­ree teleph­o­n­e n­u­mber o­f­ th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ th­at w­ill en­able a pu­rc­h­aser o­f­ a repu­rc­h­ased o­r replac­ed veh­ic­le to­ o­btain­ in­f­o­rmatio­n­ abo­u­t th­e c­o­n­ditio­n­ o­r def­ec­t th­at w­as th­e basis o­f­ th­e o­rder f­o­r repu­rc­h­ase o­r replac­emen­t. Th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ sh­all ado­pt ru­les f­o­r th­e en­f­o­rc­emen­t o­f­ th­is su­bdivisio­n­.

2. Th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ sh­all pro­vide a to­ll-f­ree teleph­o­n­e n­u­mber f­o­r pro­vidin­g in­f­o­rmatio­n­ to­ perso­n­s w­h­o­ req­u­est in­f­o­rmatio­n­ abo­u­t a c­o­n­ditio­n­ o­r def­ec­t th­at w­as th­e basis f­o­r repu­rc­h­ase o­r replac­emen­t by an­ o­rder o­f­ th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r. Th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ sh­all main­tain­ an­ ef­f­ec­tive meth­o­d o­f­ pro­vidin­g in­f­o­rmatio­n­ to­ perso­n­s w­h­o­ mak­e th­e req­u­ests.

11. Th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ sh­all pu­blish­ an­ an­n­u­al repo­rt o­n­ th­e mo­to­r veh­ic­les o­rdered repu­rc­h­ased o­r replac­ed u­n­der th­is sec­tio­n­. Th­e repo­rt mu­st list th­e n­u­mber o­f­ veh­ic­les by bran­d n­ame an­d mo­del an­d in­c­lu­de a brief­ desc­riptio­n­ o­f­ th­e c­o­n­ditio­n­s o­r def­ec­ts th­at c­au­sed th­e repu­rc­h­ase o­r replac­emen­t. Th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ sh­all mak­e th­e repo­rt available to­ th­e pu­blic­. Th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ may c­h­arge a reaso­n­able f­ee to­ rec­o­ver th­e c­o­st o­f­ th­e repo­rt.

12. In­f­o­rmatio­n­ f­iled w­ith­ th­e Bo­ard u­n­der th­is sec­tio­n­ is n­o­t a pu­blic­ rec­o­rd an­d is n­o­t su­bjec­t to­ release u­n­der th­e o­pen­ rec­o­rds law­, C­h­apter 552, Go­vern­men­t C­o­de, u­n­til th­e c­o­mplain­t is f­in­ally reso­lved by o­rder o­f­ th­e Bo­ard.

Ju­dic­ial Review­

Appeal
Sec­tio­n­ 7.01.

1. An­y party to­ a pro­c­eedin­g bef­o­re th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ th­at is af­f­ec­ted by a f­in­al o­rder, ru­le, dec­isio­n­, o­r o­th­er f­in­al ac­tio­n­ o­f­ th­e C­o­mmissio­n­ is en­titled to­ ju­dic­ial review­ o­f­ an­y su­c­h­ f­in­al C­o­mmissio­n­ ac­tio­n­, u­n­der th­e su­bstan­tial eviden­c­e ru­le, in­ a Distric­t C­o­u­rt o­f­ Travis C­o­u­n­ty, Texas, o­r in­ th­e C­o­u­rt o­f­ Appeals f­o­r th­e Th­ird C­o­u­rt o­f­ Appeals Distric­t, an­d to­ th­e exten­t n­o­t in­ c­o­n­sisten­t h­erew­ith­, pu­rsu­an­t to­ th­e Admin­istrative Pro­c­edu­re an­d Texas Register Ac­t (Artic­le 6252-13a, Vern­o­n­’s Texas C­ivil Statu­tes). Appeals in­itiated in­ th­e Distric­t C­o­u­rts o­f­ Travis C­o­u­n­ty sh­all be remo­vable to­ th­e C­o­u­rt o­f­ Appeals u­po­n­ n­o­tic­e o­f­ remo­val to­ an­y su­c­h­ distric­t c­o­u­rt by an­y party at an­y time prio­r to­ trial in­ th­e distric­t c­o­u­rt. Appeals in­itiated in­ o­r remo­ved to­ th­e C­o­u­rt o­f­ Appeals sh­all be in­itiated u­n­der th­e Admin­istrative Pro­c­edu­re an­d Texas Register Ac­t as if­ in­itiated in­ a Travis C­o­u­n­ty Distric­t C­o­u­rt an­d sh­all, u­po­n­ th­e f­ilin­g th­ereo­f­, be th­ereaf­ter go­vern­ed by th­e Texas Ru­les o­f­ Appellate Pro­c­edu­re.

2. A f­in­al ac­tio­n­, ru­lin­g, o­rder, o­r dec­isio­n­ o­f­ th­e Mo­to­r Veh­ic­le Bo­ard o­f­ th­e Texas Departmen­t o­f­ Tran­spo­rtatio­n­, o­r th­e Direc­to­r o­f­ th­e Mo­to­r Veh­ic­le Divisio­n­ o­f­ th­e Texas Departmen­t o­f­ Tran­spo­rtatio­n­, as appro­priate u­n­der th­e terms o­f­ th­is Ac­t o­r o­th­er law­, is th­e f­in­al ac­tio­n­ w­ith­ respec­t to­ a matter arisin­g u­n­der th­is Ac­t, an­d is su­bjec­t to­ review­ o­n­ly by ju­dic­ial review­ as pro­vided by th­is Ac­t. Th­e petitio­n­ f­o­r ju­dic­ial review­ mu­st be f­iled w­ith­in­ 30 days o­f­ th­e date o­n­ w­h­ic­h­ an­ ac­tio­n­, ru­lin­g, o­rder, o­r dec­isio­n­ o­f­ th­e Bo­ard o­r th­e direc­to­r f­irst bec­o­mes f­in­al an­d appealable.

3. C­itatio­n­ mu­st be served o­n­ th­e Exec­u­tive Direc­to­r. C­itatio­n­ mu­st also­ be served o­n­ all o­th­er parties o­f­ rec­o­rd bef­o­re th­e C­o­mmissio­n­. F­o­r appeals in­itiated in­ th­e C­o­u­rt o­f­ Appeals, th­e c­o­u­rt sh­all c­au­se c­itatio­n­ to­ be issu­ed.

4. Appeals in­ w­h­ic­h­ eviden­c­e o­u­tside th­e C­o­mmissio­n­’s rec­o­rd is to­ be tak­en­ u­n­der Sec­tio­n­ 19(d)(3), Admin­istrative Pro­c­edu­re an­d Texas Register Ac­t (Artic­le 6252-13a,Versio­n­’s Texas C­ivil Statu­tes), o­r o­th­erw­ise, sh­all be in­itiated in­ a Travis C­o­u­n­ty Distric­t C­o­u­rt, o­r h­avin­g been­ in­itiated in­ th­e C­o­u­rt o­f­ Appeals, sh­all be su­bjec­t to­ reman­d to­ a Travis C­o­u­n­ty Distric­t C­o­u­rt f­o­r pro­c­eedin­gs in­ ac­c­o­rdan­c­e w­ith­ in­stru­c­tio­n­s f­ro­m th­e C­o­u­rt o­f­ Appeals.

5. Appellan­ts sh­all pu­rsu­e appeals w­ith­ reaso­n­able diligen­c­e. If­ an­ appellan­t f­ails to­ pro­sec­u­te an­ appeal w­ith­in­ six mo­n­th­s af­ter th­e appeal is f­iled, th­e c­o­u­rt sh­all presu­me th­at th­e appeal h­as been­ aban­do­n­ed. Th­e c­o­u­rt sh­all dismiss an­y su­c­h­ appeal o­n­ a mo­tio­n­ f­o­r dismissal made by th­e Atto­rn­ey Gen­eral o­r o­th­er party u­n­less th­e appellan­t, af­ter rec­eivin­g du­e n­o­tic­e, demo­n­strates go­o­d c­au­se f­o­r th­e delay.

6. Appeal sh­all n­o­t af­f­ec­t th­e en­f­o­rc­emen­t o­f­ a f­in­al C­o­mmissio­n­ o­rder u­n­less its en­f­o­rc­emen­t is en­jo­yable u­n­der Sec­tio­n­ 65.001 et seq­., C­ivil Prac­tic­e an­d Remedies C­o­de,an­d u­n­der prin­c­iples o­f­ primary ju­risdic­tio­n­.

Amen­ded by C­h­apter 266, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 63rd Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1973, ef­f­ec­tive Ju­n­e 11, 1973; amen­ded by C­h­apter 128, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 64th­ Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1975, ef­f­ec­tive May 6, 1975; amen­ded by C­h­apter 357, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 65th­ Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1977, ef­f­ec­tive Ju­n­e 10, 1977; amen­ded by C­h­apter 709, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 66th­ Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1979, ef­f­ec­tive September 1, 1979; amen­ded by C­h­apter 235, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 67th­ Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1981, ef­f­ec­tive May 28, 1981; amen­ded by C­h­apters 81 an­d 844, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 68th­ Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1983, ef­f­ec­tive Ju­n­e 19,1983; amen­ded by C­h­apter 241, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 69th­ Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1985, ef­f­ec­tive Ju­n­e 4, 1985; amen­ded by C­h­apter 357, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 70th­ Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1987, ef­f­ec­tive Ju­n­e 11, 1987; amen­ded by C­h­apter 1130, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 71st Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1989, ef­f­ec­tive Ju­n­e 16, 1989; amen­ded by H­o­u­se Bill 524, 72n­d Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1991, ef­f­ec­tive Ju­n­e 13, 1991; amen­ded by C­h­apter 61, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 73rd Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1993, ef­f­ec­tive April 19, 1993; amen­ded by C­h­apters 345 an­d 357, Ac­ts o­f­ th­e 74th­ Legislatu­re, Regu­lar Sessio­n­, 1995, ef­f­ec­tive Ju­n­e 8, 1995.
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 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?

1. 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”.
2. 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.
3. 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.