The Lemon Law observes that an auto manufacturer repurchases a vehicle that has a significant defect which the manufacturer may be unable to repair within a certain amount of time. Lemon laws usually consider various aspects such as the number of repair attempts, the nature of the problem of the vehicle, and the time the vehicle has been in use (Rustad, 2015). However, the Lemon Law postulates a general term regarding a “reasonable number of repair of attempts” which can be confusing. The article selected for the case analysis will be used to analyze Lemon Law through the IRAC ( Issue , Rule , Application , and Conclusion) model for legal analysis.
Issue
The main issue deals with the specific definition of a reasonable number of repair attempts. One question that raises the issue is can consumers who have repaired their vehicle fewer than four (or two) times eligible for arbitration? The other question is can a vehicle which has surpassed the Applicable Period be eligible for arbitration? The central question is thus that can the interpretation of a reasonable number of repair times make vehicles eligible for arbitration whether they have repaired the vehicles fewer than four (or two) times and whether they have surpassed the Applicable Period?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Rule
The Lemon Law provides a specific number of repair times and an applicable period for repair. For instance, New York’s Lemon Laws provide a recovery for consumers that have repaired their vehicles four times in the first eighteen months or 18,000 miles (Post, 1986). However, further observation of the rule shows that a “reasonable number of repair times” can be used to make a vehicle eligible for arbitration when the number of repair times has not been exceeded and the Applicable Period has exceeded. A reasonable number of repair times is indicated in Subsection (f) which observes that reasonableness would occur when a consumer has repaired the vehicle twice and the defect is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury (Park et al., 2017). Additionally, less than four repair attempts would be allowed when there is no repair that will bring the vehicle back to conformance (Hanin et al., 2017). Repair attempts could be included after the acceptable period given that similar repairs occur after the applicable period.
Application
A further interpretation of the reasonable number of repairs would be applicable to consumers. The consumer that requests for arbitration should show in the request that a reasonable number of repair attempts has been met. Additionally, consumers can raise an argument to go to arbitration in cases where at least one repair attempt was made during the Applicable Period (Howells, 2017). The Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) staff should also be able to interpret what is a reasonable number of repair attempts in a given case (Corones, 2015). The DCP should also make additional clarifications regarding a reasonable number of repairs and clearly specify them in order to help consumers with further cases and arbitration.
Conclusion
The Lemon Law is used to provide arbitration where a manufacturer repurchases a vehicle that has a significant defect. The main issue regarding the arbitration deals with the interpretation of the reasonable number of repairs and applicable period. An observation of the rule shows that a reasonable number of repair times could be used to extend the law beyond the normal four (or two) repairs within a specific period of two or four years. Such a rule should be clearly stated by the DCP in order to help consumers raise a proper case for arbitration.
References
Beattie, M. A. (1983). The Connecticut lemon law. U. Bridgeport L. Rev. , 5 , 175.
Corones, S. G. (2015). ‘Lemon Laws’: an inquiry into consumer protections and remedies for buyers of new motor vehicles.
Hanin, M., Greenbaum, C., & Aron-Dine, J. (2016). Interpreting the Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts Standard in Lemon Law Arbitrations. Loy. Consumer L. Rev. , 29 , 327.
Howells, G., Twigg-Flesner, C., Micklitz, H. W., & Lei, C. (2017). Consumer sales law in the United States. In Comparative Consumer Sales Law (pp. 154-172). Routledge.
Rustad, M. L. (2015). Everyday law for consumers . Routledge.
Park, M., Jung, K. M., & Park, D. H. (2017). Optimal maintenance strategy under renewable warranty with repair time threshold. Applied Mathematical Modelling , 43 , 498-508.
Post, M. M. (1986). New York's used-car lemon law: An evaluation. Buff. L. Rev. , 35 , 971.
