Articles Posted in Car Manufacturers

The 2008 Chevrolet Aveo has an EPA estimated rating of 24/34. It has a 1.6L 103 horsepower engine which gets you from 0 to 60 in a whiplash inducing 10.8 seconds. Standard equipment includes air conditioning (A/C). This vehicle can be yours for only $9,995 (base MSRP). Or — if you haggle — perhaps for a bit less. In the Houston and Austin area, that’s about all the new car you are going to get for under $10,000 (with the exception of arguably the Kia Rio). At minimum, the Aveo will be covered under the Texas lemon law in the event that there is a problem with its manufacturing.

But, cheaper cars are being produced.

Recently, Tata Motors Ltd. of Mumbai India announced that it would soon unveil a new car that would cost $2,472.18 (100,000 Rupees, as of 9/18/07). No name has been revealed yet. These will be manufactured at a plant in West Bengal.

As a lemon law practice in Dallas, Texas, my office receive calls from potential clients with used or pre-owned lemon cars very often. The first question asked is whether the Texas lemon law applies to pre-own or used car cases. Unfortunately, the short answer to that question is that, generally, the Texas lemon law does not include used vehicles.

One exception to this rule is if the preowned vehicle is still covered under the car manufacturer’s existing warranty (and not the extended warranty), then the Texas Lemon Law “may” be used to force the manufacturer to repair the problem.

Specifically, section 2301.602 of the Texas Occupations Code dealing with the Regulation of Motor Vehicles and Transportation (better known as the “Texas Lemon Law”), only refers to “new motor vehicle(s).”

Consider the danger of driving a vehicle and having it suddenly surge or lunge forward uncontrollably. This is what happened to several Toyota Prius owners recently who described their experience as an “uncontrollable acceleration.” One Prius owner stated that his lemon car “took off like a rocket.”

According to two articles, published by ConsumerAffairs.com, despite repeated complaints and requests for repair by these owners, Toyota service centers minimized the concern and insisted that this was nothing more than “a carpet jamming the accelerator pedal or driver error.”

If this has happened only once before, then this rationale may be a plausible reason for the abnormal defect. However, if there has been numerous complaints of similar problems by different Prius owners, then either Toyota or its technicians are careless in its diagnostics, or it seems, to me, that there may be intentional misrepresentations here. This is a products liability issue.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxKmvBJn27Q
 

If you happen to be in a similar situation with your lemon vehicle, it is important to do the following to preserve your rights as a consumer:

First, get everything in writing. For example, if the service manager indicates to you that this is merely driver error, then ask him to write that on the repair invoice. Thereafter, remove the carpet from your vehicle and see if the same problem reoccurs. If it does, then it would be difficult for the same service manager to negate his or her diagnostic error when you bring the vehicle in again for the same problem.
Continue reading

Aside from the Texas lemon law, consumers of defective cars may file a claim against a car manufacturer through the Better Business Bureau’s (BBB) Lemon Law Arbitration Program. Usually, the BBB arbitration program is binding to the manufacturer and non-binding to the consumer.

This article will not discuss the benefits or disadvantages of participating in this program, as each case is different and it is best that you contact a lemon law attorney to determine which options may be best for you.

The first step in opening a claim with the BBB program is to determine if your car manufacturer participates in the arbitration program in your state. The second step is to file a claim with the BBB either by telephone or online at the BBB website.

After you have submitted your basic information, the BBB mails you a “Customer Claim Form.” You will need to complete the form and mail it back to the BBB within a certain amount of time. Thereafter, the BBB will use the information that you have provided to determine whether your vehicle is eligible to participate in the program or not – this is normally based on the current mileage on your vehicle and how long it has been since the time that you purchased the alleged lemon car.

The next step involves the BBB case handler contacting you and the manufacturer to informally resolve the “lemon dispute” on your car. Typically, the manufacturer will take on the position of denying your claim and possibly offering you an extended warranty. If you do not accept the extended warranty offer, then you may request or move to have your claim proceed to arbitration.
Continue reading

The owner of a Porsche with a defective spoiler deployment system was awarded $226,160 – plus he gets to keep the car. (Notice: I did not handle this case. Please read further).

This case involves Bruce Tammi’s 2003 Porsche 911 Turbo coupe. Mr Tammi originally leased his Porsche. During the first year of the lease, Tammi brought the vehicle in for repairs six times for a spoiler which would not properly deploy and retract. After making $57,458 in lease payments (and having experienced this problem) he opted to buy the car for $75,622.

Tammi, himself a lawyer, undertook lemon law proceedings against Porsche. At trial, in Federal court, Porsche unsuccessfully argued that the malfunctioning spoiler represented only an inconvenience and did not impair the use or operation of the vehicle. Tammi prevailed at trial and a jury awarded him $26,000. Judge Charles Clevert Jr, the U.S. District Court judge who presided over the trial, determined that the jury’s award was improper under Wisconsin’s lemon law. He changed the award to $266,160. Judge Clevert arrived at this figure by taking the total amount that Tammi had paid – both in lease payments and in purchase price, and doubling that value. Clevert stated that “Tammi’s receipt of double damages plus his retention of the car together do not seem unreasonably harsh in light of the purposes of the lemon law statute. If they appear too harsh for Porsche, Porsche should direct its concerns to the state legislature.”