User:NelsonTKanda/California Lemon Law: How I won my warranty arbitration against Toyota despite the odds.: Difference between revisions
remove user page from global category |
NelsonTKanda (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
==Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790, 1793.2, 1794.== | ==Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790, 1793.2, 1794.== | ||
(Edit 6/19/2026: It should be noted that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act's available damages for 'Repurchase or Replacement' is only applicable for new vehicles where the sale of that vehicle was accompanied by a new manufacturer's warranty. A breach of warranty claim arising out of a a denied warranty repair under the manufacturer's warranty for a used car are not eligible for 'Repurchase or Replacement' damages where the used vehicle was sold with a leftover 'balance' on the manufacturer warranty. Where a sold car that is ''technically'' used is legally considered a 'new motor vehicle' under the Song-Beverly Act, the purchase must fall under one of three specific statutory exemptions: (1) Demonstrator Vehicles, (2) Dealer-Owned Vehicles (e.g., 'brass hat' vehicles), or (3) Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) vehicles—provided that in all three cases, the vehicle was sold with a new manufacturer’s warranty issued concurrently with that specific sale. Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024)) | |||
If the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the national backstop, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is California’s home-field advantage. It is the statute that takes warranty promises out of the realm of glossy brochures and puts them into the world of actual obligations. In ordinary English, Song-Beverly tells manufacturers that a written warranty is not a suggestion, not a marketing flourish, and certainly not an invitation to become creative after a part fails. Under Civ. Code, § 1793.2, a manufacturer that gives an express warranty must make good on it through service and repair; and under Civ. Code, § 1794, the consumer has a cause of action when the manufacturer does not.<ref name=":7">Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790, 1793.2, 1794 (2026), ''Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act'', accessed May 21, 2026, <nowiki>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&part=4.&title=1.7.&chapter=1</nowiki>.</ref> | If the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the national backstop, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is California’s home-field advantage. It is the statute that takes warranty promises out of the realm of glossy brochures and puts them into the world of actual obligations. In ordinary English, Song-Beverly tells manufacturers that a written warranty is not a suggestion, not a marketing flourish, and certainly not an invitation to become creative after a part fails. Under Civ. Code, § 1793.2, a manufacturer that gives an express warranty must make good on it through service and repair; and under Civ. Code, § 1794, the consumer has a cause of action when the manufacturer does not.<ref name=":7">Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790, 1793.2, 1794 (2026), ''Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act'', accessed May 21, 2026, <nowiki>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&part=4.&title=1.7.&chapter=1</nowiki>.</ref> | ||