NEW JERSEY LEMON LAW DECISIONS

keywords, New Jersey lemon law, decisions, statutes, New Jersey lemon law procedures, administrative law, claims, automobile, New Jersey lemon law lawyer.

       Statistically, manufacturers have won 68% of the lemon law cases that go to trial.   This somewhat contradicts the easy path to victory indicated in the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs brochure on the New Jersey lemon law.  The reasons for this are as follows:

    1. Some of the better cases settle, so the statistics in that way present an unduly negative picture.

    2. Sometimes consumers fails to provide a last chance opportunity to repair-  "The Division of Consumer Affairs has consistently ruled that the “Last Chance Letter” and a subsequent opportunity for repair are prerequisites to filing a claim, and is jurisdictional. See Viccaro v. Mitsubishi Motor, 95 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 56, where it was held that a failure to give the manufacturer a final opportunity to repair an alleged defect pursuant to the steps outlined in the regulation was fatal to a consumer's claim."
 

    3. Judges require that the problem continue to exist.

    4. Smaller problems even if they occur three times do not meet the New Jersey lemon law unit standard.  Noise cases have sometimes lost in the New Jersey lemon law.

    In McGinn v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., OAL Dkt. No. CMA7530-90 (Oct. 18, 1990) it was concluded that while the noise level of the engine when petitioner's vehicle is driven in overdrive may be an annoyance, it did not constitute a defect. See also, Kriegisch v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., OAL Dkt. No. CMA5413-90 (Aug. 8, 1990) (banging noise emanating from right rear portion of the vehicle was not a chronic problem, resulting in no impairment in the use, safety or value of the vehicle); Reid v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, OAL Dkt. No. CMA6186-90 (Aug. 23, 1990) (intermittent “squealing” noise occurring when the brakes were applied does not rise to the level of a substantial impairment of value); Wiener v. Hyundai, 91 N.J.A.R.2d. (CMA) Vol. 36 (gear noise did not amount to substantial impairment); Dogra v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, 92 N.J.A.R.2d CMA Vol 3, 73 (various annoying noises do not amount to substantial impairment).  In Troy v. BMW, the lemon law judge noted a group of cases finding for manufacturers in noise cases:


In Pun Son Kim v. Chrysler Motor Corporation, OAL Dkt. No CMA 4020-98 (June 2, 1998) a clicking noise on hard acceleration was held not to be a substantial impairment. The Administrative Law Judge held that noise alone may be an irritant and a nuisance, but it may also be characteristic of the vehicle itself, under varying conditions, a characteristic which must be shown to substantially impair its use value or safety.
See also Don W. Stalowski v. Ford Motor Company OAL Dkt. No. CMA3368-98 (Apr. 21, 1998) (a knocking noise from the engine upon starting cold at between 1500 and 2000 revolutions per minute was not an impairment); Antonio J. Gomes v. Chrysler Motor Corporation OAL Dkt. No. CMA1778-98 (Mar. 20, 1998) (a humming sound at speeds beginning at 50 mph were characterized as minor and did not affect the value or safety of the vehicle); Chu Hui-Lun v. Chrysler Motor Corporation (Dec. 1, 1997) OAL Dkt. No. CMA11219-97 (Dec. 1, 1997) (a loud squeak or squeal which became louder as the car was driven faster did not substantially impair the vehicle's use, value or safety); Kim D. Pasco v. Nissan Motor Corporation in USA OAL Dkt No. CMA 10201-97 (Dec. 19, 1997) (noise and vibration in the motor was not a substantial defect);

    Our office has prevailed on a number of lemon law cases
Barte  v. Kia Barte v. Kia Motors, http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oaldecisions/initial/cma7702-00_1.html.
Westergard v. Kia Motors, http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oaldecisions/initial/cma9926-00_1.html
Giglio v. Chrysler http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oaldecisions/initial/cma09965-02_1.html

We have also lost cases).  We make a determination with the client as to whether a case should be filed in court where other claims can be include or in the lemon law unit where the court has jurisdiction only over only lemon law claims.  

keywords, New Jersey lemon law, decisions, cases, lawyers, New Jersey lemon law claims,

DO I CONTACT YOU

Law Offices of Howard A. Gutman,
230 Route 206, Flanders,  New Jersey 07836
(973) 598-1980, E-mail Howian@aol.com

FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION  

We offer a free initial telephone consultation to discuss your consumer fraud or lemon law case. Please feel free to call or e-mail our office.