This is a development of potential significance to our automobile dealership clients.
The most valuable California statute for the plaintiff in consumer litigation is often the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ.Code section 1750 et seq.) The CLRA lists 23 business practices as "unlawful" (Id., section 1770, subd.(a)), and is intended to "protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices." Subdivision (a)(6) makes it unlawful for a seller to represent goods are new "if they have deteriorated unreasonably or are altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used or secondhand." The statute applies to the sale of any consumer goods.
On the other hand, Vehicle Code section 430 defines a "new" vehicle as one "constructed entirely from new parts that has never been the subject of a retail sale, or registered" with a government agency or authority. And Vehicle Code section 9990 requires motor vehicle dealers to disclose prior repaired material damage, while section 9991 defines "material" damage is damage requiring repairs costing more than 3 per cent of the MSRP or $500, whichever is greater.
So what happens when the CLRA and the Vehicle Code collide? That was the question in Bourgi v. West Covina Motors (September 24, 2008) ___Cal.App.4th___ (Second Dist., Div. Eight, B195738).
More after the jump.