Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

One of the requirements of the California Lemon Law is that lemon cars must have a defect that substantially impairs use, value, or safety to the buyer. But what does “substantially” mean? That question has been the subject of several cases decided under the California Lemon Law. One of those cases was Lundy v. Ford Motor Company, 87 Cal. App. 4th 472 (2001). Mr. Lundy purchased a 1997 Ford F150. Within the first year of ownership, the truck went back to the dealership for cracking noises, sticking windows, an odor coming from the air conditioning system, and transmission problems.

The dust-up over the word “substantially” started when the jury asked for clarification of the term. Ford proposed a dictionary definition. The court used part of that definition and added another. The final definition presented to the jury was: “substantially . . . is an adverb modifying the verb impaired and the use of that term here means that the non-conformity was not imaginary and actually impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle.” The plaintiff won and Ford Motor Company appealed.

The Court of Appeal passed on whether the unaltered dictionary definition should have been given. The court did hold, however, that a qualifying defect cannot be any impairment. Whether there is a defect must be subjected to an objective test, based on what a reasonable person would understand to be a defect, applied within the specific circumstances of the buyer. Does that mean that the car has to be un-drivable to be a lemon? No. A substantial impairment to value under the lemon law can occur in a car that can be driven. A substantial impairment to safety can also exist where the car can be driven. Same with use, if the quality or reliability of the usage is substantially impaired to the person who bought the car. It depends upon what a reasonable person would think and it must be applied to the specific buyer, namely, you, the consumer. Ultimately, California’s Lemon Law must be applied broadly and its purpose of protecting consumers must be given full weight.

Have you ever wondered whether those blue-sky promises by salesmen have legal significance? Under the California Lemon Law, they just might. It all comes down to whether the promises turned into an express warranty. That can happen when there is: (1) an affirmation of fact or promise which relates to the car and becomes a part of the bargain; or (2) a description of the goods which is made part of the “basis of the bargain.” (“Basis of the Bargain” is another way of saying “what you bargained for.”)

An early lemon law case discussed this very subject. In Keith v. Buchanan, 173 Cal. App. 3d 13 (1985), the buyer relied on a sales brochure that described the “Island Trader 41” as “a picture of sure-footed seaworthiness.” Based in part on that promise, the buyer, Mr. Keith, paid $75,000 for the vessel. There were no traditional warranty documents that came with the vessel, however, and when it failed to sail as promised, Mr. Keith brought suit. (Yes, the lemon law applies to boats.)

The trial court found that there was no warranty, but the California Court of Appeal reversed and said that the promises in the sales brochure rose to the level of an express warranty. The promise of “seaworthiness” was an affirmation of fact and not just an opinion or commendation (another way of saying “puffery” or “sales talk”). The Court of Appeal then agreed with Mr. Keith that the promise of “seaworthiness” had become part of the basis of the bargain. And that was all Mr. Keith needed to revive his lemon law claim.

So, if you walk into a car dealership and are presented with a glossy brochure, and the salesman confirms what the brochure says, you should be able to hold the dealership to those promises of a smooth ride, a luxurious interior, and great fuel economy.