Virginia Lemon Law

We are all "consumers" in need of protection, and consumer "justice" statutes have been enacted by the Legislature and U.S. Congress to level the marketplace's playing field. Enforcing consumer rights sometimes requires a do-it-yourself" approach - neither the Attorney General, the Governor nor the President will protect us from unlawful, and even willful, wrongdoing. In America, occasionally the civil jury must serve as the ultimate enforcer of the law.

A warranty is simply a promise by the manufacturer (and sometimes by a seller) to do something. Most warranties are termed "limited," and only provide the manufacturer's promise to repair, replace or adjust a defective product. There is generally no right a a refund of the purchase price, except for new motor vehicle lemons.

"Lemons" (so called for the sour taste left in the buyer's mouth) come in all sizes and shapes. Most lemons have wheels, and technically, Virginia's "lemon" law -- the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act -- is limited to automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and the chassis of motorhomes. However, some lemons float (boats), others fly (aircraft), and even a third class includes defective houses and mobile homes. For the most part, the days of caveat emptor (loosely translated, "tough luck") are over! In Virginia, for a motor vehicle to qualify for a buy-back under the Warranty Enforcement Act, it must generally be no older than four model years, and have documented problems during its first eighteen months following delivery to the first owner or lessee. There must also be evidence that the manufacturer was notified within eighteen months from delivery. For owners or lessees of vehicles that do not qualify under this "lemon" law, there may still be warranty law rights under other statutes.

Virginia's Warranty Enforcement Act does not include boats and watercraft (such as jet skiis, etc.). Neither does it include the "coach" or living section of a motorhome. However the consumer with a boat or motorhome defect or malfunction is still protected under the Commonwealth's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

We hear in my office almost daily of auto manufacturers which are unwilling to repurchase their unrepairable "lemons;" of car dealers selling as "new" vehicles with hidden damage and shoddy repairs; and of unfair sales practices evidenced by forged signatures, broken promises, and outrageous price gouging.

Virginia's General Assembly, even in the face of overwhelming lobbying efforts by forces from the Dark Side, has demonstrated both its collective courage and its concern for consumer protection and justice:
-- For violations of the Consumer Protection Act proven by clear and convincing evidence, minimum damages ($500) and reasonable attorney fees and costs are available. On proof of willfulness, damages may be multiplied threefold.
-- For "used" car buyers purchasing vehicles sold "as is" but without the mandatory Buyers Guide window sticker, there is the right to cancel the deal during the first thirty days.
-- Dealers unable to complete vehicle title registration with DMV during the first thirty days must accept return of the vehicle once the temporary certificate of ownership (30 day tags) has lapsed without renewal.

• Our Warranty Enforcement Act, or "lemon" law, is one of the best in the Nation. Juries clearly recognize the pain and aggravation associated with the purchase of a defective and "significantly impaired" motor vehicle which can not be properly repaired during the first eighteen months. In July, 1997, a Fairfax County judge and jury in Debrew v. Lexus awarded money damages totaling almost $84,000 for an unrepairable, $43,000 Lexus 300SC

• NOTE: effective July 1, 1999, the Virginia lemon law will require either:

a. filing a lawsuit during the first eighteen months, or
b. contacting the manufacturer and "resorting" to its arbitration or dispute program. (We are not certain what "resort" to means... as a minimum, you should ask that your complaint be reviewed by the dispute program used by the manufacturer. DaimlerChrysler and Ford have their own programs. GM, Honda, Toyota, and most others use the AUTOLINE program administered by the Better Business Bureau.)

• When dealer-arranged financing fails to materialize, in Virginia, the buyer can return the vehicle within twenty-four hours for a refund of money paid.

• Contract law for "goods" in Virginia is found in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Article Two. This act explains rights of cancellation or rescission ("revocation of acceptance" and "rejection of nonconforming goods"), as well as express and implied warranties.

• The law for the lease of "goods" such as motor vehicles is governed in Virginia by the UCC, Article 2A.

Federal warranty law is found in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, at 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq. Mag-Moss is really a Federal "lemon" law with coverage reaching automobiles, airplanes, boats, and even some aspects of real estate. When read together with the Virginia UCC, the source of most substantive warranty law for the sale of goods, the law provides the consumer with a powerful arsenal to fight manufacturers and dealers unwilling to stand behind their warranties.

These are a few examples where the "playing" field is almost "level!"

The Virginia Supreme Court announced on June 5, 1998, its FIRST LEMON LAW OPINION. This decision -- Subaru v. Peters -- reflected the Commonwealth's first significant consumer protection case from Virginia's highest Court.

In Subaru v. Peters, the trial judge had ruled, on Subaru's summary judgment motion, that Ms. Peters' automobile, which had been purchased "used" and previously operated by Hertz, still qualified for Warranty Enforcement Act protection. After winning a jury verdict ordering Subaru to repurchase her "significantly impaired" motor vehicle, Ms. Peters was forced to defend in Subaru's appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Key issues resolved by the Supreme Court include:
- certain used automobiles can qualify for "lemon" law repurchase and other money damages
- expert witness testimony is not always required... the "victim's" testimony may be sufficient
- there is no requirement for three or more repairs for a nonsafety defect, or one or more repair
visits for a safety problem, or a minimum of thirty days in the shop (first 18 months)
- personal use representing 66% of the total mileage is "substantial" family, non-business use

Posted in: Law