Clarifying Lemon Law Protections
Breaking Lemon Law Myths and Uncovering the Truth
Get the Facts from Our California
Lemon Law Lawyer
Consumers, judges, and lawyers often have a mistaken perception of California’s lemon law.
Many myths were fostered by a brochure that was circulated by California’s Department of Consumer Affairs many years ago. Though well-intended, it led many consumers to believe their rights under the lemon law expired sooner and provided misleading information regarding the requirements.
Unfortunately, some of these misconceptions are still prevalent today. Don’t be misled. Don’t rely on the word of some armchair attorney or unlicensed professional. And especially do not rely on the car dealerships to give you advice on your consumer rights.
If you have a defective vehicle, you need to learn the truth about your actual rights as a consumer, and that’s where we come in.
For answers to specific questions, speak with our California lemon law attorneys right away.
Lemon Law Myths Explained
Our California lemon law attorneys are breaking down the most common myths and misconceptions around California’s lemon laws.
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is better known as the California lemon law.
This act gives consumers the edge they always needed when facing big corporations with battalions of attorneys and endless money to defend them against a lone consumer. The law puts the consumer on equal footing with the manufacturer so their claim may be heard and justice can be found when a lemon vehicle has been purchased. The vehicle owner must prove the defect was substantial and that the manufacturer was given a reasonable opportunity to repair it, so it’s important to keep track of this information.
Pursuing a Refund or Replacement
If the same defect has been presented at least four times within the first 18 months and 18,000 miles, or if the vehicle has been in the shop for more than 30 days for various issues, then it is presumed that you’ve given the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to fix the problem. This gives you an advantage, but only when a case goes to trial since it involves the burden of proof.
When determining what the consumer is entitled to, the main concern of the judge or jury is finding out if the manufacturer has been given a reasonable number of repair attempts for a significant defect. A jury can find that a reasonable number of repair attempts took place even if there have been less than four. At Norman Taylor & Associates, one of our goals is to educate the public on a vehicle consumer’s rights as they relate to defective cars, motor homes, and parts. Our principal objective is to help our clients receive the compensation they deserve.
