As CalBizLit has discussed previously, consumer warranties in California are governed by the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code section 1790 and following. The act requires manufacturers, or their California designees, to correct consumer product nonconformities within a reasonable number of attempts.
More after the break.
If the consumer product is a new passenger vehicle under warranty, it is presumed that a reasonable number of attempts has been made if the nonconformity is one that substantially impairs the use, value or safety of the vehicle, and within the first 18 months of 18,000 miles, (a) the same nonconformity has been the subject of at least four repair attempts, and the consumer has notified the manufacturer directly; or (b) the vehicle has been out of service for repairs for a cumulative total of 30 days or more; or (c) if the nonconformity is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, there have been two tries at a repair, and the buyer has directly notified the manufacturer.
If the vehicle doesn’t get repaired, the manufacturer has to take the vehicle back,give the consumer a new one, and pay all the resulting sales tax, registration, “plus any incidental fees.” Or, if the consumer wants, he can simply unwind the purchase, and the manufacturer has to pay back everything the consumer has paid or incurred in connection with the vehicle, other than after-market products.
As you might imagine, if the vehicle is a $200,000 Bentley, this can turn into a lot of money. As it did in Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (June 8, 2009) ___Cal.App.4th___ (GO39922), decided today.
This is a really weird case. First of all, the nonconformity was that the case smelled bad. Apparently, really bad. The car was at the dealership for more than 170 days, and nobody could fix the problem. Not surprisingly, the jury found a Song-Beverly violation, resulting in a judgment for $214,000 in favor of plaintiff upon his return of the car.
Second, the issue in the case was whether the trial court had authority to award pre-judgment interest under Civil Code section 3287, which allows the award of interest in cases where damage amounts are certain or capable of being made certain. And the third thing is this: Bentley didn't appeal the award of interest. Instead, it made the strategic decision to wait for months, then attack the interest award as void, theorizing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award interest.
Yeah, well, good luck with that one. The trial court held that, not surprisingly, that it did too have jurisdiction. And the Court of Appeal agreed. The result adds over $100,000 in interest.
And why didn't Bentley appeal? Well, there's a companion case, today's decision on the plaintiff's appeal from the same judgment. And that one presents a cautionary tale for every company embroiled in discovery battles. I'll post about that one, probably this evening.
Comments