Why the (CA) lemon law seems useless, practically speaking

[soconfoozed]

Everybody probably knows me as Chief Complainer at this point, based on my incessant bitching over my BRZ downtime. I'll probably stop right about the time I get back in the driver's seat. I do love the car, but I'm not amused by Subaru's inability to get things done. I think I'm looking at five weeks out of the car when I get it back. I'm currently at two and a half, waiting for an ECU to ship "the week of 9/10."

Anyway.

I looked in to the CA lemon law, to see what my options are. It turns out, especially for enthusiasts, the lemon law really offers no protection at all. I covered this a little bit in another post, but I thought I'd summarize in a new thread. I'm not an attorney, but I did read the relevant document, and this is my understanding. If you want to give it a read, knock yourself out. If somebody could tell me I'm wrong, I'd (probably) be very happy.

The (CA) lemon law gives you two options: replacement car, or replacement dollars. Except, not really: the manufacturer has no obligation to repay you for anything you've done to the car, such as tint or paint correction. There's a subsection 1793.2 (e) 1 that seems to apply to goods that get permanently affixed to real property (an antenna mast cemented into the ground? I don't know) which you might argue covers window film, clear bras, the labor to remove swirls, and so on. But I don't think the rest of the language supports that reading. 1793.2 does seem to directly state in relation to cars that non-manufacturer-installed goods aren't covered. In the case of a cat back or something, this makes sense -- you can take the cat back with you. But in the case of film or paint/interior protection, you get bonked.

By the way, if you choose dollars, you get bonked even harder, because you don't get back the full purchase price of the car -- you get the pro rata portion back assuming a useful life of 120,000 miles. In my case, I would only get back 97.5% of the purchase price. Just gone forever. Lame, right? I didn't endeavor to buy a car that turned out to be unreliable. Why punish me for walking if that's what I choose? There are those who are dishonest who might try to drive a car around for a year and get their money back if not for this pro rata remedy, so I understand the thinking, but just set the criteria correspondingly higher for a full refund. It isn't often something like what I'm experiencing happens.

Long story short, replacement car or replacement dollars, if you have aftermarket additions you can't remove, you lose. If you want dollars, you lose more.

Now for the practical matter...how agreements induce certain behaviors and apply pressure.

So I was considering this further, and I got to thinking, well, maybe this wasn't the intent of the law. They get the car back, but they can't sell it as new, right? In that case, it should be a money-losing proposition for them, and this should motivate a settlement. So, maybe the legislature took the position that no car is completely fucked, and if they can motivate the manufacturer to settle for an amount that could cover anticipated future repairs, the consumer is protected. In other words, they should be willing to give you anything less than what they'd lose re-selling the car as used in order to have you agree not to assert your rights under the lemon law relating to the issue. It's simple: they can either lose, or lose less by paying up. But unfortunately, for enthusiast-class cars like ours, I bet the used sale price right now for a car with a few thousand miles is practically the same as what they can get for it new...and so actually, the dealer can make money on the car twice.

My sense is thus that a direct dollars and cents argument yields no motivation at all to take care of ANY of this stuff. As a consumer, you lose every time. You can't apply any leverage at all to get things done.

This actually makes me wonder what any manufacturer would be scared of at all. The laws have no teeth, it would seem. I guess a really angry customer could always sue?

[Lonewolf]

Disclaimer: This is NOT legal advice, but rather some friendly chatter.

I sympathize with your frustration, and I'm glad that you're taking the time to educate yourself.

With that said, a full purchase price refund (while accounting for wear and tear, mileage) is not really equitable to both parties, at least in the eyes of the legislature, who largely defer to manufacturers of consumer products for various reasons.

The CA Lemon Law is just a presumption, that is, it's not a slam dunk that once you meet the requirements of the law, you are necessarily guaranteed victory. View the law as just a tool or an aid for consumers (who at one point had much less assistance).

As you said, if you can prove further damages as result of this ordeal (such as lost wages, etc.) above and beyond what the lemon law may help you get back, you can always sue, and you may be able to take advantage of small claims court, which is much less costly than higher-level court actions.

***Owners affected by these CEL/stalling issues might want to file claims with the NHTSA since stalling while driving can be viewed as a safety issue. If an investigation is opened by the NHTSA, then you will see the manufacturers start to pay more attention to the consumers' concerns, and it may result in a recall.***

[egraphic]

Originally Posted by soconfoozed

Everybody probably knows me as Chief Complainer at this point, based on my incessant bitching over my BRZ downtime. I'll probably stop right about the time I get back in the driver's seat. I do love the car, but I'm not amused by Subaru's inability to get things done. I think I'm looking at five weeks out of the car when I get it back. I'm currently at two and a half, waiting for an ECU to ship "the week of 9/10."

Anyway.

I looked in to the CA lemon law, to see what my options are. It turns out, especially for enthusiasts, the lemon law really offers no protection at all. I covered this a little bit in another post, but I thought I'd summarize in a new thread. I'm not an attorney, but I did read the relevant document, and this is my understanding. If you want to give it a read, knock yourself out. If somebody could tell me I'm wrong, I'd (probably) be very happy.

The (CA) lemon law gives you two options: replacement car, or replacement dollars. Except, not really: the manufacturer has no obligation to repay you for anything you've done to the car, such as tint or paint correction. There's a subsection 1793.2 (e) 1 that seems to apply to goods that get permanently affixed to real property (an antenna mast cemented into the ground? I don't know) which you might argue covers window film, clear bras, the labor to remove swirls, and so on. But I don't think the rest of the language supports that reading. 1793.2 does seem to directly state in relation to cars that non-manufacturer-installed goods aren't covered. In the case of a cat back or something, this makes sense -- you can take the cat back with you. But in the case of film or paint/interior protection, you get bonked.

By the way, if you choose dollars, you get bonked even harder, because you don't get back the full purchase price of the car -- you get the pro rata portion back assuming a useful life of 120,000 miles. In my case, I would only get back 97.5% of the purchase price. Just gone forever. Lame, right? I didn't endeavor to buy a car that turned out to be unreliable. Why punish me for walking if that's what I choose? There are those who are dishonest who might try to drive a car around for a year and get their money back if not for this pro rata remedy, so I understand the thinking, but just set the criteria correspondingly higher for a full refund. It isn't often something like what I'm experiencing happens.

Long story short, replacement car or replacement dollars, if you have aftermarket additions you can't remove, you lose. If you want dollars, you lose more.

Now for the practical matter...how agreements induce certain behaviors and apply pressure.

So I was considering this further, and I got to thinking, well, maybe this wasn't the intent of the law. They get the car back, but they can't sell it as new, right? In that case, it should be a money-losing proposition for them, and this should motivate a settlement. So, maybe the legislature took the position that no car is completely fucked, and if they can motivate the manufacturer to settle for an amount that could cover anticipated future repairs, the consumer is protected. In other words, they should be willing to give you anything less than what they'd lose re-selling the car as used in order to have you agree not to assert your rights under the lemon law relating to the issue. It's simple: they can either lose, or lose less by paying up. But unfortunately, for enthusiast-class cars like ours, I bet the used sale price right now for a car with a few thousand miles is practically the same as what they can get for it new...and so actually, the dealer can make money on the car twice.

My sense is thus that a direct dollars and cents argument yields no motivation at all to take care of ANY of this stuff. As a consumer, you lose every time. You can't apply any leverage at all to get things done.

This actually makes me wonder what any manufacturer would be scared of at all. The laws have no teeth, it would seem. I guess a really angry customer could always sue?

\\\\\

My recommendation - forget the lemon law. Call the General Manager - and in the most reasonable and (sincerely) cordial terms, tell him that you would be his biggest cheerleader on Yelp and on this site if he succeeds on unwinding the deal (no depreciation games) or putting you in a new car.

That's the route I took with my dealer, and he really rose to the occasion (the unspoken implication being that I would be his worst enemy on the social networks if he didn't resolve my issue). But I really didn't need to threaten - my dealer's heart was in the right place.

I recommend printing out and showing your dealer my story:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16192

Best of luck.

[xwd]

Also keep on SoA, they have on more than one occasion replaced cars.

https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/

That is the link to file a nhtsa complaint. Saw so far there was one in the BRZ which just said electrical system and none on the fr-s.

[irxproductions]

I had a car bought back when I lived in North Carolina back in 1997. Instead of pursuing the Lemon Law, I recommend using the Better Business Bureau.

They have an Auto Line service that offers mediation and buyback program. After filing a full complaint with the BBB, the manufacturer of the car (it wasn't Toyota or Subaru) got back to me within one month and offered a buyback price.

Yes, the price took into account that my car had 10,000 miles on it, but, that being said, it was far better than if I sold the car myself or traded it in.

In addition, the car I bought before my FR-S also developed a series of issues that were never fixed. Though the issues were minor ones like noises, they were incredibly frustrating. After contacting the manufacturer (also not Toyota or Subaru) and providing them a full rundown (10 pages of documentation including 10 different visits to the dealer), they offered me a very reasonable settlement including an extended warranty or a coupon to buy a car at the "employee discount price." I still own the car because of this.

Try contacting the BBB and try contacting Subaru directly. Toyota and Subaru don't want unhappy customers on their hands, so they'll often do everything in their power to satisfy you (reasonably, that is).

That being said, I'm having quite a few problems with my FR-S (including rear deck tapping, A/C chirp, idle chirp, and more), and am very frustrated. If possible, I recommend using another car (I'm fortunate to have a 3rd car my wife and I share as well as a motorcycle).

The fewer miles you put on the car until the problems are solved or a settlement is reached, the better.

I used Scion's contact form and received a call back within 24 hours from Scion HQ with a Case Manager and Case Number. Maybe Subaru's contact form will work in a similar fashion for you?

[ravenMTgirl]

I'm in WA so our Lemon Law is probably different but I had to take this route with two cars (a dodge and a pontiac). Before actually filing for Lemon Law reimbursement, the manufacturers stepped up and gave me my money back (all of it). It seems that the manufacturers don't want it to officially go through the lemon law and settled before that actually happened.

Pontiac was super fast about it because it was an air bag issue. With the dodge the car vibrated badly when going down a hill and hitting the brakes. The brakes worked fine but I wasn't happy because it was a brand new car and they could never figure out what the problem was. We had to meet with a couple of top guys at dodge (they actually flew out here for the meeting)! I did get my money back for the dodge but it took a while and I had to clearly let them know that I would go through the lemon law if they didn't agree to take the car back.

[FT_Monk]

To the OP, I understand your frustration. However you are lucky you do not end up with a car that needs warranty serviced every few months and you sale it after two year for 60% of the original price. If you do not feel confident with the car then take the small loss and walk away. Like other said, chances are they may give you a full refund of the purchase price.

[Gen]

After legal fees are paid, the manufacturer does lose a good bit of money on a lemon. Remember, if you win, they pay YOUR legal fees, any interest to the bank, etc.

[Razz]

After 30 days for the same problem you can file for Lemon law.

Choose whether the small loss in funds is worth it compared to getting a replacement car.

[robispec]

Originally Posted by ravenMTgirl

I'm in WA so our Lemon Law is probably different but I had to take this route with two cars (a dodge and a pontiac). Before actually filing for Lemon Law reimbursement, the manufacturers stepped up and gave me my money back (all of it). It seems that the manufacturers don't want it to officially go through the lemon law and settled before that actually happened.

This happens because in cali the title is "branded" as a lemon law car (kind of like a Salvage title). when the dealer/manufacturer lets it go al the way they have HUGE "diminished value" AND they must disclose this.. The Early evos had a 0300 code where the injectors would start to misfire due to engine noises the ecu thought were knock. Took mitsu 3 years to figure it out. I had a friend who put up with it (no safety issues) for 31,950 miles and returned his car to the dealer with a note from a lawyer and got his FULL purchase price back WITH the interest he had paid to that point ...all to keep the title from being branded. This doesn't happen always but I know this instance to be true.. I could make my evo throw this code on comand hard accel through 3rd gear then "rock" it into 4th and Bam check engine light comes on..
btw things you want and instal are your own responsibility imo..you want them maybe the next owner doesn't. For you it might be value added but most businesses look at it as added liability (tint starts failing). my 2 cents.

[egraphic]

Originally Posted by egraphic

\\\\\

My recommendation - forget the lemon law. Call the General Manager - and in the most reasonable and (sincerely) cordial terms, tell him that you would be his biggest cheerleader on Yelp and on this site if he succeeds on unwinding the deal (no depreciation games) or putting you in a new car.

That's the route I took with my dealer, and he really rose to the occasion (the unspoken implication being that I would be his worst enemy on the social networks if he didn't resolve my issue). But I really didn't need to threaten - my dealer's heart was in the right place.

I recommend printing out and showing your dealer my story:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16192

Best of luck.

This approach worked for me. I sat down with the GM, explained my point of view after only having the car for 800 miles, and was offered a chance to totally unwind the deal (get my money back) or get a brand new car, extended warranty thrown in.

I told the dealer that I'd be their best friend on these boards and Yelp if they did what I felt was the right thing. Of course, the implication was also that, since I understood social media, I could be their worst nightmare. But I was never threatening.

I took the new car, and so far, I've been lucky - still CEL free at 3500 miles.

Best of luck.

[klara1006]

I need X amount of repairs and Y amount of days in the shop to qualify for lemon law.
This myth is not surprising. Even seemingly reputable sources — including law firms and local government agencies — make errors regarding these two types of lemon law qualifications. Most of the errors are made in an effort to simplify and explain how lemon law works in terms of a rule of thumb.

The truth is, while here are certain numbers regarding repairs and days in the repair shop that establish a LEGAL PRESUMPTION THAT THE VEHICLE IS A LEMON, there is no hard and fast rule that establishes a judgment that the vehicle is a lemon.

With or without the presumption, your car is a lemon if a reasonable person would find that it has had too many repair attempts or spent too much downtime in the shop. Your car may be deemed a lemon after as few as two repair attempts, or no repair attempts in cases such as a spontaneous fire that burns your car to a total loss before the defect can be repaired. Along this line of reasoning, safety issues generally require fewer repair attempts than non-safety related issues.

The reasonableness standard comes down to the arguments lawyers could make before a jury or judge at trial. If those arguments are persuasive enough, the case will usually be settled instead of going to trial.