Some 40 years after the enactment of the original lemon laws, their need is still being aptly demonstrated. An Ogden, Utah car dealer was recently charged with fraud and forgery after allegedly foisting off a truck on an unsuspecting customer that was actually a “manufacturer’s buyback.” That meant that the vehicle was defective enough that the manufacturer had purchased it back from the previous owner—a fact that must be disclosed to anyone else purchasing the vehicle. The car dealer, while being marched off to jail, was still vehemently denying any wrongdoing, even after being charged with forging documents to hide the truck’s actual history.

A Maryland car dealership is also being investigated by state officials there for similar practices—about 80 customers were sold manufacturer’s buybacks over the last 2 years, their actual histories being hidden from buyers. The dealer claimed “it was more of a clerical problem than a nondisclosure”—a statement that surely did little to pacify the outraged purchasers.

“If every manufacturer always stood behind its product unconditionally, there would be no need for lemon laws,” said leading California lemon law attorney Norman F. Taylor. “Instead, every state in the union has some kind of lemon law to protect its citizens from living with defective vehicles. This confirms that there is a need to protect consumers. Manufacturers left to their own devices will not do the right thing.”

Taylor knows of what he speaks. He has been a lemon law specialist since 1987, and he and his firm, Norman F. Taylor and Associates, have handled over 6,000 cases for consumers with a 98 percent success rate.

As anyone who has ever purchased a lemon knows, the experience of dealing with the manufacturer to get the situation rectified can range from annoying to downright horrific.

Daily there are news stories demonstrating the need for lemon laws and their enforcement. Fortunately, firms such as Taylor’s are there to stand behind consumers in such trying times.