DECISIONS UNDER THE NEW JERSEY LEMON LAW
COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
______________________________________________________________
1. Problems affecting the safety of the vehicle are generally sufficient to prevail. Where a consumer can establish a defect in brakes, transmission, or engine, he has generally prevailed, though there are decisions to the contrary. Initially, consumers won virtually all of the brake cases, with the obvious point that a potential brake failure constitutes a safety issue. Recently, manufacturers have sometimes been successful in arguing that a brake noise is inconsequential or even normal, and that the noise does not impair the functioning of the braking system.
2. Cosmetic defects are generally not sufficient. Most consumers claiming unusual noises, squeeks, poor gas mileage, paint irregularities, radio problems, have lost. Again, the decisions vary, but a strong showing of a defect and expert testimony will usually be necessary to win. Our office may file such claims in court as a breach of warranty since the proof requirements are more lenient than under the New Jersey lemon law.
3. One would think that proof of a presently-existing nonconformity such as a brake light or check engine light would be sufficient to prevail, but a fair number of petitioners are losing these cases, with the judges finding the light to be merely an inconvenience and not indicative of a substantial problem. (This again shows that given the sometimes unpredictable nature of these hearings, and the fact that personal judgment can play a role, a consumer may want to think twice about rejecting a favorable settlement.
4. Expert testimony is frequently helpful to establish a defect and explain its significance.
5. Consumers lose slightly more than they win in court, with manufacturers winning a little more than 60% of the cases. This is due to the following:
a) cases are not evaluated by the Lemon Law Unit for their merits, only to see that they technically qualify in that the consumer has the required number of repair orders and other supporting material. Some consumers believe a history of problems is sufficient to prevail, not realizing that you need to demonstrate a presently existing substantial problem at the hearing.
b) the manufacturers are represented by
skilled attorneys. While generally, legal skill cannot turn a clear losing case into
a winner, subtle changes in emphasis can make the difference in a close case.
c) the stronger cases tend to be settled. Consumers representing
themselves file a fair number of claims with obvious problems- the claimed problem is not
set forth in the last chance letter, the nonconformity has been fixed but the consumer
does not want the car.
Brake Defect Constitutes Lemon Noisy, grinding
brakes which caused vehicle to pull right met the lemon law. Davis v. Mazda
Motor, 92 New Jersey Ad. Rep. 54 (Lemon Law Unit 1991)
Brake noise satisfied the lemon law in Orefice v. Chrysler
Corporation, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 271.
However, where the court determined
that grinding noise associated with automobile’s brakes did not impair its safety,
use, or value, owner was not entitled to relief under Lemon Law. Davis v. Toyota Motor
Sales, 97 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 14
Water leak constitutes lemon Director reverses judge
finding that persistent water leak constitutes a lemon. Black v. Volvo, 92 New Jersey A.
R. 124 (Lemon Law 1992). (consumer represented by Howard Gutman).
Water seepage in sunroof caused by high pressure car wash
found not to be a substantial impairment for Lemon Law purposes in Perrella v. Chrysler Corporation, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 1.
Steering problem satisfies lemon law Watkins v. Chevrolet, 92 N.J.A.R.2d 145 (:Lemon Law Unit 1992)
Lemon Law Notification Consumer's failure to advise manufacturer of air-conditioning defect in last chance letter barred lemon law claim for that defect. Birmingham v. Hyundai, 95 New Jersey Adm. Rep. 126 (Lemon Law Unit 1995)
Characteristic of Vehicle Claim of poor gas mileage insufficient to meet lemon law. Robbins v. Toyota, 95 New Jersey Adm. Rep. 19 (Lemon Law Unit 1993)
Commercial Vehicle Not Eligible for Lemon Law Hund v. Ford, 91 New Jersey Ad Rep. 1 (Lemon Law Unit 1991)
Rattle found not eligible for Lemon Law Dogra v. Mitsubishi, 92 New Jersey A. R. (Lemon Law 1992).
Windnoise and rattle not covered under lemon law Owner failed to show that value if automobile was substantially impacted by transmission whine, wind noise, and rattles and vibrations in passenger door and dashboard. Martins v. Ford Motor Company, 97 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA)
Unverifiable vibration or buzzing sound in passenger compartment did nor support claim for relief under Lemon Law. Wiechmann v. Ford Motor Company, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 212.
Rotten egg smell emanating from automobile’s exhaust pipe did not substantially impair its safety, use, or value, and thus owner was not entitled to Lemon Law relief. Monninger v. Hyundai Motor Company, 97 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 12.Alleged Poor gas mileage is not covered under Lemon Law. Hassmiller v. Ford Motor Company, 97
N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 10.
Proof of oil leak meets lemon law Schoppmann v. Ford Motor Co., 94 N.J.A.R.2d 19 (1993)
Consumer’s subjective complaint about the paint scratches fails to substantiate remediable nonconformity under Lemon Law statute. Simone v. Nissan Motor Corporation, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 4.Paint Imperfections in paint job of expensive vehicle were minor and did not substantially impact upon the value of the vehicle. Rosenburg v. Lotus Cars, 95 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 121.
Neither pull in steering nor sound emanating from front end was a demonstrable defect for which manufacturer was liable to consumer. Tursi v. Ford Motor Company, 95 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA)
(key words, lemon law decisions, New Jersey, administrative law, lemon law last chance letter, lemon law defect criteria, lemon law attorney)
PRE-LEMON LAW CASES
Need for Reliability " Most people regard the purchase of a new car as a major investment rationalized by the piece of mind that flows from its dependability and safety. Zabriskie v. Chevrolet, 99 N.J. Super. 441, 458 (New Jersey L.Div. 1968).
CASES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR NEW JERSEY LEMON LAW MAY STILL BE FILED AS A BREACH OF WARRANTY CLAIM
Even if a vehicle does not meet the lemon law criteria, a claim for breach of warranty under New Jersey law can still be filed. We have obtained recoveries for cars which did not meet the mileage or defect criteria of the New Jersey lemon law.
New Jersey lemon law attorney
Law Office of Howard A. Gutman,
1259 Route 46, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
(973)257-9400, e-mail Howian@aol.com
Initial Consultation free
(key words, lemon law decisions, New Jersey, administrative law, lemon law last chance letter, lemon law defect criteria, lemon law attorney)
index.htm
Return to lemon law claims home page
lemonlawNJ.htm The New Jersey
Lemon law statute
hearing
Preparing
for the New Jersey lemon law hearing
NJlemonlawun.htm The New Jersey lemon law
division guide