The Lemon Law Remedy - Refund or Replacement?
Some consumers are successful at pursuing their own lemon law claims by calling or writing the manufacturer directly. I am always glad when I hear that a consumer has tried to resolve the matter before seeking legal representation. That says to me that they tried to be reasonable.
I am always dismayed, however, when I hear stories from consumers about how their request for relief under the lemon law went awry because of misinformed manufacturing representatives. A common misrepresentation is that the lemon law does not apply to used cars (it does, as long as the used car is sold with a warranty). Another misconception is that the lemon law only applies during what is known as the “presumption period.” In California, the presumption period is 18,000 miles or 18 months, whichever comes first. In actuality, the lemon law applies during the life of the warranty - the presumption has to do with who eventually assumes the burden of proof regarding what constitutes a reasonable number of repair attempts - the manufacturer or the consumer.
I have also heard of situations where the manufacturer tries to force a replacement vehicle on the aggrieved consumer. The California lemon law is clear - the consumer may choose between a refund or a replacement. The same rules about mileage off-sets apply, but it is unquestionable that the consumer has the veto power over whether the remedy is a refund or a replacement. I can think of several rationales for this rule, but the most obvious is that the consumer should not be forced to accept a product from a company that the consumer has lost confidence in. So stand your ground if your vehicle qualifies as a “lemon” under California’s lemon law.
Bookmark: 
