Lemon laws in California are laws that provide protection to consumers by bounding their vehicles to fall into certain limits according to the standards of quality and performance. These laws prevent them from violating such standards. Lemon laws are not necessarily applicable to the used or leased vehicles.
The Law Office of Michael S. Kelly
Contents
- The Law Office of Michael S. Kelly
- Korper & Shefter
- Law Office of Kathryn P. Cooney
- Darrel Cameron Horsted
- Law Office of Marcia M. LaCour
- CA Civil Code Section 1790-1790.4 (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act)
- 1790 – This chapter may be cited as the “Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act”
- CA Civil Code Section 1793.22 (Tanner Consumer Protection Act)
The law office of Michael is located at 5811 Pine Avenue, Suite A, Chino Hills, California. It’s a sole-membership firm run by Mr. Michael S. Kelly, who is not only a California lemon law attorney but in addition to lemon law cases, he also deals in other areas of law. This renowned lemon law attorney has been practicing in California for quite some years and has attained an unrivaled reputation. Attorney Kelly obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Notre Dame Law School in 1991. He holds membership of the Lawyer’s Committee of the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association. For a few years he has been concentrating on the defense of consumer warranty, lemon law and products liability claims involving the recreational vehicle industry.
Areas of Practice
- Lemon Law
- Consumer Law
- Warranty
- Commercial Law
- Negligence
- Products Liability
- Insurance
- Recreational Vehicles
Korper & Shefter
Attorneys, Rene Korper and Bret A. Shefter, opened a law firm at 27240 Turnberry Lane, Valencia, California to help those who turned unfortunate after buying a vehicle that turned lemon or having tribulations in claiming their insurance. Both the attorneys are well-liked California lemon law attorneys.
Attorney Korper graduated from Southwestern University School of Law in 1984 and in the same year was admitted to the bar in California. Korper is currently a member of Los Angeles County and Santa Clarita Valley Bar Associations, State Bar of California, Consumer Attorneys of California and National Association of Consumer Advocates. On the other hand attorney Shefter earned a degree in law from University of California School of Law in 1992 and joined the California bar in 1995. Shefter is a member of Los Angeles County and Santa Clarita Valley Bar Associations, State Bar of California, Consumer Attorney of California, National Association of Consumer Advocates and The Order of Barristers.
Areas of Practice
- Lemon Law
- Consumer Protection
- Consumer Rights
- Consumer Litigation
- Consumer Fraud
- Warranty Law
Law Office of Kathryn P. Cooney
Located at 440 Escondido Avenue, Vista, California, the law firm of Kathryn P. Cooney is a well-reputed firm owned and administered solely by Kathryn Cooney. It’s a full-service law firm having a close focus on California lemon laws. Attorney Cooney is a University of San Diego law graduate who after completing her J.D. in 1976 did her LLM in 1989. Ms. Cooney was admitted to the bar in California and U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, in 1977, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California and in 1980, Court of Military Appeals.
Areas of Practice
- Lemon Law
- Personal Injury
- Medical Malpractice
- Tort, Automobile Accidents
- School Bus Accidents
- Motorcycle Accidents
- Wrongful Death
- Military Law
Darrel Cameron Horsted
The law office of Darrel Cameron Horsted is located at 650 California Street, Suite 2500, San Francisco, California. Darrel Cameron Horsted is a California lemon law attorney who is renowned all over the state for his case-winning legal services. Attorney Horsted completed his law education after passing his J.D. exam from Golden Gate University in 1974. Horsted was admitted to the bar in California in the same year. He currently holds memberships of State Bar of California, Lawyers’ Club of San Francisco Queen’s Bench, San Francisco Trial Lawyers, National Lawyers’ Guild and Consumer Attorneys of California.
Areas of Practice
- Lemon Law
- Bankruptcy
- Business Law
- Small Business Law
- Business Bankruptcy
- Consumer Law
Law Office of Marcia M. LaCour
Marcia M. LaCour has opened a law office at 16101 Washington Street, Riverside, California. Attorney Marcia M. LaCour is the sole member of this law firm. Ms. LaCour is a well reputed California lemon law attorney. She received her degree in law from University of San Diego and became a Juris Doctor in 1991. She was then admitted to California and U.S. District Court, Southern District of California and U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District Court, Central District of California and U.S. Court of Appeals and Ninth Circuit. She is a member of State Bar of California, Riverside County, San Bernardino County and American Bar Associations, Thomas B. Campbell Inns of Court, The Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Consumer Attorneys of California and National Association of Consumer Advocates.
Areas of Practice
- Lemon Law
- Automobile Accidents
- Insurance
- Defective Products
- Dog Bites
- Wrongful Death
- Personal Injury
- Warranty Law
California Lemon Laws
CA Civil Code Section 1790-1790.4 (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act)
1790 – This chapter may be cited as the “Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act”
1790.1
Any discharge from the buyer’s side, except those expressly stated in this chapter, shall be supposed opposing to public policy and shall be considered void.
1790.2
If any condition of this chapter to any person is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable.
1790.3
The provisions in this section shall not affect the privileges and responsibilities of the parties determined by reference to the Commercial Code except that, if the provisions conflict with the constitutional rights assured to the buyers, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail.
1790.4
The remedies of this chapter are collective and shall not be considered as restricting any remedy that is otherwise available, and, shall not be construed to replace the provisions of the Unfair Practices Act.
CA Civil Code Section 1793.22 (Tanner Consumer Protection Act)
1793.22
- This section shall be known and may be cited as the Tanner Consumer Protection Act.
- It shall be alleged that a reasonable number of attempts have been made to conform a new motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties if, within 18 months from delivery or 18,000 miles, whichever occurs first, one or more of the following occurs:
- The nonconformity could cause death or serious bodily injury and the defect has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents
- The manufacturer has attempted the repair of the same nonconformity four or more times and the buyer has at least once notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair
- The manufacturer has held the car in his custody for the purpose of repair of nonconformity for more than 30 calendar days. This time period shall be extended due to conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or its agents. The buyer shall be required to directly notify the manufacturer about the defects. This presumption shall be a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof, and it may be asserted by the buyer in any civil action, including an action in small claims court, or other formal or informal proceeding.
- As stated in section 1793.22 of California lemon laws, “if a qualified third-party dispute resolution process exists, and the buyer receives timely notification in writing of the availability of that qualified third-party dispute resolution process with a description of its operation and effect, the presumption in subdivision (b) may not be asserted by the buyer until after the buyer has initially resorted to the qualified third-party dispute resolution process as required in subdivision (d). Notification of the availability of the qualified third-party dispute resolution process is not timely if the buyer suffers any prejudice resulting from any delay in giving the notification. If a qualified third-party dispute resolution process does not exist, or if the buyer is dissatisfied with that third-party decision, or if the manufacturer or its agent neglects to promptly fulfill the terms of the qualified third-party dispute resolution process decision after the decision is accepted by the buyer, the buyer may assert the presumption provided in subdivision (b) in an action to enforce the buyer’s rights under subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2. The findings and decision of a qualified third-party dispute resolution process shall be admissible in evidence in the action without further foundation. Any period of limitation of actions under any federal or California laws with respect to any person shall be extended for a period equal to the number of days between the date a complaint is filed with a third-party dispute resolution process and the date of its decision or the date before which the manufacturer or its agent is required by the decision to fulfill its terms if the decision is accepted by the buyer, whichever occurs later”.
- A qualified third-party dispute resolution process shall be one that does all of the following:
- Conforms to the least requirements of the Federal Trade Commission for informal dispute settlement procedures as set forth in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as those regulations read on January 1, 1987
- Makes judgments which are obligatory on the manufacturer if the buyer chooses to accept the decision
- Fixes a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days after the decision is accepted by the buyer
- Provides mediators who are consigned to decide disputes with copies of, and instruction in, the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission’s regulations in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as those regulations read on January 1, 1987, Division 2 (commencing with Section 2101) of the Commercial Code, and this chapter.
- Restricts the manufacturer either to replace the nonconforming motor vehicle if the buyer wishes to or reimburse the amount equal to the purchasing price plus other expenses to the buyer in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2
- Provides for an inspection and written report on the nonconforming condition of a motor vehicle, at no cost to the buyer, by an automobile expert who is independent of the manufacturer.
- Requires that the arbitrator must be neutral and that no other person will be allowed to participate substantively in the merits of any dispute with the arbitrator unless the buyer is allowed to participate also. The subsection doesn’t prohibit any arbitrator from deciding a dispute.
- Obtains and maintains certification by the Department of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 472) of Division 1 of the Business and Professions Code.
- Definitions:
- “Nonconformity” means a nonconformity which substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle to the buyer or lessee.
- “New motor vehicle” is,
- A vehicle other than a tractor, farm vehicle, or a vehicle designed primarily for off-road use which has four or more wheels and which is drive by a motor and is used to fulfill personal, family, or household needs and is required to be registered.
- With a gross vehicle weight under 10,000 pounds that is bought or used primarily for business purposes by a person, including a partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, or any other legal entity, to which not more than five motor vehicles are registered in this state.
- “Motor home” is an equipment dually used as both, a vehicle and a traveling home or even a full fledge home. It can be used from leisure or recreational activities like, camping to permanent living.
-
- According to California lemon laws, “except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall sell, either at wholesale or retail, lease, or transfer a motor vehicle transferred by a buyer or lessee to a manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2 or a similar statute of any other state, unless the nature of the nonconformity experienced by the original buyer or lessee is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the prospective buyer, lessee, or transferee, the nonconformity is corrected, and the manufacturer warrants to the new buyer, lessee, or transferee in writing for a period of one year that the motor vehicle is free of that nonconformity”.
- Apart from the obligation that the nature of nonconformity be divulged to the transferee, paragraph (1) does not apply to the transfer of a motor vehicle to an educational institution if the purpose of the transfer is to make the motor vehicle available for use in automotive repair courses.