Recent Posts

August 31st, 2011

The Future of California Lemon Law

Don’t panic, the Song Beverly Act, California’s Lemon Law, is not going anywhere soon. As far as the future, it depends of how far forward you are willing to look. Twenty five years from now the number of Lemon Law cases could be 75% of what there are today. There are a number of reasons why Lemon Law cases could be much less in the future. Two of the reasons that stand out are statistics and technology.

Statistics
Let’s look at the numbers first. Depending on whose data you use, modern automobiles may have as many as 15,000 components. Some experts say less, some more. It depends a lot on who does the counting. There are those who don’t count the components inside of sealed units. We favor the idea that any component that can fail, whether it is inside a sealed module or not, should be counted.

For example: Some of the components inside one of the many control computers have components so small they aren’t visible except with a good microscope. Nonetheless, the failure of one such component may render the whole computer defective. Therefore, regardless of the size of a component we think it must be counted. Remember, when it comes to the lemon law, it’s all about the defects. It isn’t unusual for a modern automobile to have 40 or 50 computers all connected together by a network – more components.

Suppose you reduced the number of components by one half or more. Statistically that would be 50% fewer chances for a failure. That’s one possibility.

Technology
Like it or not, we are rapidly approaching a time when our cars will be either partly or wholly electric. If you remove the reciprocating engine (what most cars have now) from a car, you will have reduced some of the causes for lemon law cases that occur now. Without a gas or diesel engine the transmission also will be much less complex. For a number of reasons the push toward battery operated automobiles and trucks is underway, and no amount of corporate foot-dragging by those who have an interest in engines driven by fossil fuels, is going to prevent it from happening. Practically everyday companies are forming whose products are the result of discoveries made at the many university laboratories working on battery technologies alone. The real question is how many more components would be needed for this technology?

Will it take twenty five years for these companies to make batteries that will drive a car 300 miles or more on one charge? Doubtful: It would be very surprising if it took ten years, however the change over will probably take longer. It will happen here in the United States first, and in Europe probably at the same time. Here we have the most restrictions on energy. It really doesn’t matter if we have ample reserves of oil and gas, restrictions on acquisition and use will prevail. Countries like China and India have no such restrictions.

Conclusions
It is as we said a numbers (statistics) game. Fewer components equal fewer failures; direct correlation. It shouldn’t be surprising if warranties also are longer. As far as the Lemon Law is concerned, statistics still come into play. The larger the number of any product manufactured the greater the chance that some of them will be defective. Some of these defects, just like the problems that occur today, will be unrepairable and people will need our help seeking the remedies allowed under the California lemon law. Norman Taylor & Associates will be here ready to help as long as we are needed.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, lemon law | 2 Comments

August 1st, 2011

Preserve Your Rights- Don’t Modify Your Vehicle

At Norman Taylor & Associates we see many cases where the vehicle owner’s modifications have created serious warranty problems after purchase. In some cases, modifications have disqualified consumers from seeking recourse under the California Lemon Law. There are three categories of modification that come immediately to mind.

  1. Lift kits installed on pickup trucks and 4-wheel drive vehicles
  2. Electrical/electronic modifications to entertainment/communication systems
  3. Trucks and cars with other than original tires and rims

Mechanical & Electrical Issues

Let’s talk about lifts on trucks first. Getting everything to align will take some skill and patience, and these are just the mechanical problems. Before you even consider these installations, think about how the all the suspension components fit together, even the slightest variance may cause serious damage and uneven wear. Some installations may include features that adjust the vehicle’s ride height electronically. These additions may conflict with electronic and or software components within the vehicle.

Let’s briefly discuss electronic media systems, these include sound systems, blue tooth systems, lighting systems, and much more. Inevitably the installer will need to power these components and often times this may include tying it in to the existing wiring system often referred to as “splicing.”  Some of the fellows who do this work are very skilled and you’d be hard put to tell the difference. Other third party installers may do very poor work. You cannot assume that the manufacturer always makes these modifications prior to the sale, and therefore you cannot assume you have any warranty coverage at all. When the dealer installs certain items, it is highly likely that  a third party to which they may sublet the vehicle to installs these items. Note: most dealerships use a variety of third party companies to perform tasks they have neither the time nor equipment to perform. Upholstery is a good example.

Finally, it is not uncommon at all for people buying a new car; especially those buying a sporty model to ask for fancy rims and wider ones perhaps. Some vehicles will come equipped with modified rims and tires. What the seller usually will not discuss is the potential risk to the basic alignment or unusual wear to the tires.  Some buyers make the purchase and these modifications are undetected.

For all of these examples, the sales person at the dealership very rarely volunteers anything about warranty coverage and how it is affected by modifications. If you do ask whether your warranty will be affected or voided, especially before you have purchased the vehicle, they will usually promise that there will be no affect whatsoever so they can close the deal. Seldom do they provide this promise in writing.

What Manufacturers Say

Here are a few relevant warranty statements from the 2011 Ford New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The section called “What is not covered under the New Vehicle Limited Warranty?’ states damage caused by alteration or modifications are not covered. Examples include the following:

  • alterations or modifications of the vehicle, including the body, chassis, or components, after the vehicle leaves the control of Ford Motor Company (emphasis added)
  • tampering with the vehicle, tampering with the emissions systems or with the other parts that affect these systems (for example, but not limited to exhaust and intake systems)
  • the installation or use of a non-Ford Motor Company part (emphasis added) other than a certified emissions part) or any part (Ford or non-Ford) designed for off-road use only installed after the vehicle leaves the control of Ford Motor Company, (emphasis added) if the installed part fails or causes a Ford part to fail. Examples include, but are not limited to lift kits, oversized tires, roll bars, cellular phones, alarm systems, (emphasis added) automatic starting systems and performance-enhancing powertrain components or software and performance ‘‘chips’’

This is just an example of a typical warranty exclusion. What’s the bottom line here? If your salesperson promises you that your modifications/upgrades are covered by warranty, realize that there is serious risk to you. Remember, most manufacturers’ warranties were carefully prepared; with regard to the California Lemon Law it may not matter what the dealer TELLS you, usually it’s what’s in writing that counts.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties | 1 Comment

June 23rd, 2011

The Worst Repair Order Violations

Over the years at Norman Taylor & Associates, we have handled thousands of California Lemon Law cases. Some are so devious and underhanded we read them in amazement.  They are shown around the office followed by comments like, “Do you believe this? Do these people really not understand Bureau of Automotive Repair requirements for a properly documented repair order?”

Here’s what we saw. The vehicle is a 2010 Honda Civic. The owner took the vehicle to the dealership for extensive repairs. The following is the first repair order entry as written; we presume it was written by the service writer:

C/S the alignment is off. Also the brake pedal pulsates. The left rear shock is leaking. Vehicle will not start at times. Window rattles when half open. Test drove vehicle. Unable to duplicate problem at this time.

Do you see it? My first thought was, are these people serious? Don’t they know the difference between singular and plural? They are supposed to have read the B.A.R.’s (Bureau of Automotive Repair) Write it Right: A Guide for Automotive Repair Dealers which contains instructions on how to properly fill out a repair order. If you count the defects described in this travesty, you should get five; that’s five separate defects! It ain’t rocket science folks. Here’s what we get:

  1. The alignment is off
  2. The brake pedal pulsates
  3. The left rear shock is leaking
  4. Vehicle will not start at times
  5. The window rattles when half open

Do you count this as five separate defects? Anyone with good basic reading skills will see these as five separate defects. Note the last line in this particular defect report? Unable to duplicate the defect at this time. Which one? Are we crazy over here or did the folks at Honda simply assert, suggest or state outright that these five defects are really just once monster defect, and that they couldn’t duplicate them all at once? By the way, if you can find some connection between all five of these defects, you have skills we’ve never encountered.

Oh! You think this is over…sorry, it is not. Following the great catchall defect, which they said they could not duplicate, they then attempt to repair three of the five in the list, and ignore the other two.

Here are the next three entries in the repair order:

  1. C/S the driver’s side window rattling half way when cruising. Binding and Sticking: Front door power window regulator, left replace. Confirm rattle coming from the inside driver door. RR driver door panel found broken part at window regulator. Apply lube, silicone grease where appropriate. [We have italicized words which demonstrate that they duplicated the defect and took steps to repair it.]
  2. C/S the brake pedal pulsates when braking. Unable to duplicate the problem.
  3. C/S rear shocks leaking. Cause: premature wear and tear. Damper/shock absorber assembly, left rear replaced. Shock absorber alone on 06, includes alignment. [We have italicized words which demonstrate that they duplicated the defect and took steps to repair it.]

It would appear, for reasons one can barely guess, that the repair facility saw no reason to make repair attempts on problems they don’t want to bother with such as defect number one and defect number four above. What about the alignment problem? What about the no start condition? These are hardly insignificant, unless of course someone wanted them to seem insignificant.

Norman Taylor’s book, Lemon Law, The Standard Reference Guide describes this cunning technique in detail. We call it, “Slicing and Dicing the Defect”, although when the book was written such an astonishing example was not considered. Check out Chapter Seven, The Gauntlet.

Food for thought: Are the folks over there incompetent or was the repair order written this way with the intent to deceive? Hopefully it is neither one, but it wouldn’t surprise us if it was either one of the above or both.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties, lemon law | No Comments

June 16th, 2011

Honda CBR 1000 Oil Consumption Class Action

In May 2010 a class action lawsuit was filed against American Honda Motor Company, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. It was filed on behalf of owners and former owners of 2008 and 2009 Honda CBR 1000 RR motorcycles. It is alleged in the law suit that the piston rings in these motorcycles are defective resulting in the engines burning excessive amounts of oil. This is the situation, the problem.

At Norman Taylor & Associates we take numerous motor cycle lemon law cases, including the CBR 1000 RR model. Class action lawsuits are hardly a new thing, but remember, it usually takes a large number of angry people to move forward with a Class Action. Also these people must provide evidence to the class action law firm that is totally convincing before they will proceed with such a suit.

When Honda responds to complaints of excessive oil consumption by asserting that “all motorcycles use more oil during the break-in period, or when an owner reports that their vehicle is using 1, 2 even three quarts of oil per 1,000 miles, and they say dismissively, this is not a problem, it’s time for somebody to take action.

When surveying the numerous blogs on the CBR 1000 RR oil consumption problem, many of the respondents noted how close they came to running out of oil entirely. For the record there are only three quarts of oil in the sump. It isn’t difficult to imagine the vehicle running out of oil, the engine seizing and depositing chunks of the bike and rider all over the freeway. For Honda through its agents the dealerships to casually assert that three quarts of oil consumption in a 1,000 miles is okay is worse than negligent.

For the reader’s information, if you are part of a class action law suit involving your motorcycle, this does not necessarily prevent you from taking advantage of the lemon law. You can always give us a call here at Norman Taylor & Associates if you have questions about motorcycle lemon law.

Honda’s most pervasive slogan is “The Power of Dreams.” As is often the case, there is a peculiar disconnect between what is stated in the various advertising media and the ability of the product to deliver what was promised.

We have written elsewhere on this site extensively about oil consumption. But as a reminder, here’s a viewpoint that is not mentioned on Honda’s self congratulatory media. All of this oil consumption about which they have no problem, and which is being blown into our atmosphere as pollution is hardly consistent with their written assertions. The title of one of their principal corporate web sites is, “Environmental Leadership.” Praising their vehicles for consuming and spattering the country side with 1, 2 even 3 quarts of oil every 1,000 miles hardly seems like environmental leadership, an even worse, when an owner objects, grinding that user into legal submission shows no level of responsibility at all.

This thought applies to all manufacturers of car and motorcycles who make similar oil consumption assertions: a little less arrogance and a little more responsibility, please.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties, lemon law | No Comments

May 24th, 2011

2012 Honda Civic Recalled for Risk of Fuel Leak

It was recently reported that 1,156 2012 Honda Civics have been recalled due to a faulty o-ring that does not properly align with the fuel feed line. A fuel leak may result in a fire with an ignition source.

Honda will be informing buyers and the campaign to repair the defect will be in place by month’s end. Upon inspection, Honda will replace the fuel feed line if it is necessary to do so.

No crashes, or fires were reported and the recall was actually discovered by a factory employee who noticed a fuel smell on April 29, 2011. Honda subsequently informed regulators.

It is reported that 17% of the vehicles that have been affected by the defect were to be sold in the U.S. A majority of which have not yet been sold.

While recalls are common in the automotive industry, it is important to understand how a recall may affect a lemon law case. If consumers have given the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the defect, including a repair attempt as a result of a recall, and the defect still exists, the consumer may seek recourse under the California Lemon Law.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties, lemon law | No Comments

May 5th, 2011

Hyundai: A Real Quality Success Story

For decades German engineering was the standard for premier quality products world wide. If you wanted a machine, whether a 10-ton lathe or miniature scientific test equipment, you bought German, if you could afford it. Those decades are over. Perhaps they will come back, time will tell.
If you look at sales numbers, the Germans are still selling lots of Mercedes, BMWs and other makes. This is proof of the strength of brand loyalty created over a very long time. But…there is a delay on the effect of brand value lost. After all, statistically an owner taking his new $60,000 vehicle in ten times to get the transmission or high pressure fuel pump repaired is but one wave in a storm of disappointment. So he contacts a lemon law attorney, it’s still just one case, right?

Enter another statistic. Over 40% of Norman Taylor & Associates California lemon law cases for 2010 were for German cars. Take a breath…extrapolate this fact nation wide. You can’t include any other part of the world because the U.S. is the only country on the planet that has serious lemon law consumer protection laws.

The German problem is a problem of quality. Some would call it a social problem, or a national problem, or getting parts from plants all over Europe and trying to control quality. It’s still a quality problem, it always has been.

The 20th century has seen two great manufacturing successes. Both were based almost entirely on the application of rigorous quality principals throughout the manufacturing processes. The push for quality excellence in both cases was driven from the top; this is to say the corporate directors, CEO and senior management, engineering, and production were fully behind changes they knew would take decades to accomplish. This takes extraordinary focus and intention.

The first example is post war Japan. In the fifties Japan had a reputation for shoddy products. By the sixties they were jumping to the fore front of quality in whole industries. Japanese quality was getting so good it became their watchword, it became the brand. Despite recent difficulties they are still the manufacturing powerhouse of Asia.

The second example is Korea. Like Japan in the fifties, they also had a reputation for producing low quality manufactured goods. Their real commitment to quality didn’t begin until 2001. Like Japan, Korea’s commitment had to come from the top and spread throughout their manufacturing structure.

For those of you who like statistics, the following numbers are illustrative of Hyundai’s success. J. D. Power is the premier automobile quality rating organization in the country, if not the world. In its annual “Initial Quality Study” it measures the number of reported problems per 100 vehicles in the 1st 90 days of ownership. In 2001 Hyundai was 32nd out of 37 manufacturers surveyed. This was not very good. In baseball speak they were practically in the cellar. In 2011 they are 10th out of 37 manufacturers surveyed. To continue the baseball metaphor, they are a contender for the playoffs.

Our interest at Norman Taylor & Associates is automobiles, light trucks, RV’s and motorcycles. Looking over our statistics, for numbers of lemon law cases per year, our charts dovetail nicely with J. D. Power’s quality surveys. The thing to remember is what sort of concentration of effort is required to achieve this kind of change. Think of the planning and persistence needed to continue past all difficulties, national and supranational: And it’s not ancient history, it’s happening right now.

With these examples in mind, is there anyone who doesn’t see a parallel in these examples when looking forward at Chinese manufacturing? At the moment they don’t have a very good reputation in many areas, but they learn fast. When Chinese automobiles and trucks hit the American market—thinking historically—it is a safe bet that we will see a steep rise in lemon law cases, but once they understand the quality equals success equation, who would doubt that they will succeed? Like Japan, they understand that planning based on the quarterly report—the western management method— simply will not work. It is a reactive technique. The stock goes up, who knows why? Everyone has a party, buys a new boat and forgets about quality. The stock goes down and management looks around for whom to fire.

Lest you think we at Norman Taylor & Associates have some connection with Hyundai except the Lemon Law, we do not! When they make a lemon car, and it is brought to us, we will do our job. It doesn’t happen as often though. A good question: Can Hyundai keep to the plan? We shall see.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, lemon law | No Comments

March 10th, 2011

Slogans and Symbols Don’t Make Great Automobiles

The symbol for Michelin tires is a fat man made of fluffy tires stacked one on the other. What is the connection between this symbol and Michelin tires? The connection has been lost through the years. The symbol for the Ford Mustang is the wild horse and this makes more sense until you’ve taken it to the dealership a dozen times, then a basket of lemons might be a better symbol.

Since 1987, Norman Taylor & Associates has dealt with thousands of defective vehicles. In the California Lemon Law it is all about the defects. As consumers we want the best. We want to believe the slogans. But when our engine blows and we experience the terror of trying to reach the side of the freeway without becoming a hood ornament on a semi, our last thought isn’t, “I’m not worried; It’s built Ford tough“, or “I’ll be fine, my truck is like a rock.” Tell that to the guy who has made ten trips to the dealership to get his truck repaired. Meaningless slogans! It may be built tough, but it sure isn’t tougher than 20,000 pounds of semi-trailer.

It’s a matter of honesty and maybe a little reality. At Norman Taylor & Associates we have a slogan; it says, “We wrote the book on Lemon Law!” We did! Two of them! Advertising is the business of changing minds, of planting a phrase or image in our heads.

One of Honda’s slogans is, “The power of dreams.” What does that mean? Who’s dreams? One of Toyota’s slogans is, “I love what you do for me- Toyota!” At Toyota, it’s all about ME. We are pretty sure that the family in the fatal vehicle crash in San Diego did not love what Toyota did for them. Unfortunately in most cases, as a consumer you must be prepared to be ground into the dirt if you have a persistently defective lemon car. Manufacturing arrogance is not pretty.

We are not against advertising, but what about the concept of truth in advertising? Forget perception! You can’t drive perception to work every day! People with lemon cars don’t really want to spend their valuable time at the dealership. Nor do they want to be forced to retain a California Lemon Law attorney for help. Remember, when you don’t measure up to your image, when your symbols and slogans are Madison Avenue nonsense, and you cars and trucks turn out to be lemons, they will definitely be remembered. Lemon cars are like first kisses, you never forget them, even though you wish you could. So a word of advice to you folks in the automobile manufacturing business, please, just a little less smoke and mirrors.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, lemon law | 1 Comment

November 10th, 2010

California Lemon Law- How Accidents Can Affect a Case

At Norman Taylor & Associates we get inquiries about the lemon law every day. We always ask for the accident history. We do so because if the vehicle has been involved in an accident we know that the dealerships are going to try blame defects on the accident. We don’t argue that some accidents could cause defects that might otherwise be appropriate for a lemon law case.

Here’s one way the dealership tries to minimize their costs. You have a minor rear-ender. It barely scrapes the paint. Six months later you start having problems with the front suspension. The dealership refuses to repair the vehicle under warranty and recommends that you talk to your insurance agent. This or similar scenarios are surprisingly common. It is such an obvious scam.

Dealerships have warranty repair budgets, which because of the surprisingly poor quality of modern automobiles, keeps dealership repair facilities very busy. When the warranty repair budget is consumed the dealership has to eat the cost of repairs instead of billing the manufacturer. If the dealership can deflect the cost of a repair from their budget to the consumer’s insurance carrier, they may increase their profit margin. How motivated is the dealership to do this?

When a California lemon law lawyer analyzes a client’s repair documents, they watch for these situations carefully. We make every effort to determine how accidents might affect a lemon law case. We also know how dealerships play fast and loose with the truth. It is our business to know. If you have a lemon and the dealership is trying to blame the defects on an accident, contact a California Lemon Law attorney right away.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, lemon law | No Comments

November 9th, 2010

Lemon Law: Apples are not Oranges

A large part of the work of a California lemon law attorney is to review Service Orders and Work Orders. We see hundreds, even thousands of them every week. A lot of them are straight forward and make sense. Some however, defy belief.

Has this happened to you? You take your vehicle to the dealership with an engine or transmission problem. Let’s say the engine is making a knocking -clicking noise when the vehicle is sitting at idle. The first time you take it in for this defect the technician says he has performed all manner of tests and he cannot duplicate the defect. You say OK, but you know something is wrong.

By the way, it is not unusual for car owners to be remarkably patient with the dealership. You take the car home and sure enough the next morning when you start the car it’s knocking and clicking. You listen to your tubercular engine for a week or so and when you can’t stand it any more, you take it back to the dealership.

After a couple days fooling around the service person calls you and tells you your car is ready, please come on down and pick it up. You are ready to hear how they discovered something was wrong with the lifters and parts have been replaced and now the car is running fine; more importantly, no more knocking and clicking. The Service Writer gives you the Work Order. Here’s part of what it says. “We tested every way possible, then we compared it to two other like vehicles and they make the same noises. The noise is characteristic of this model. Nothing is wrong with your car.”

You think maybe you’ve been given the wrong Work Order. Surely they don’t expect you to believe this large pile of lawn supplements. But no, the Service Writer says that’s what they found with a straight face. The sheer illogic of it is mind-numbing. If what he asserts is true, then all of the same models as yours are defective in the same way.

You try to remember if the sales literature said anything about this noise that miraculously appears in all models of the same kind; nope, nothing there. You have a look through the technical description of the vehicle in the Operator’s manual; nothing there either. You know that Apples are not Oranges. Manufacturers are not going to try to sell vehicles that all have the same defect.

The particular example I am writing about has a good ending. The consumer continued to take the vehicle in for this defect and insisted that they find the problem and repair it. Wonder of wonders, somewhere around the fifth or sixth repair attempt the dealership repair facility discovered that the lifters were defective and made repairs. This was what was wrong all along and vindicated the consumer’s belief. If this happens to you, stay calm, do not commit any major felonies on the Service Writer. Just keep taking the car in for repair and if necessary, call a lemon law attorney to ensure that this foolishness stops once and for all.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law | No Comments

October 25th, 2010

Lemon Law News: VW Says, We Got Sludge, by Donald P. Ladew

What had been the other guy’s problem came home to roost in the author’s driveway the other day. I read this headline at Autoweek.com. “VW to cover maintenance costs for sludge damaged engines.” As you may have guessed, I am the owner of a VW Passat Wagon, and yes, it has the 1.8T Turbo engine. Unfortunately I cannot take advantage of this news. I can, however, comment about it.

Under the proposed settlement VW and Audi were compelled to pay maintenance costs in a class-action lawsuit over sludge-damaged engines in 479,768 VW and Audi models. According to court documents, the settlement affects 1997-2004 Audi A4 models and 1998-2004 VW Passat models with 1.8-liter turbocharged engines.

In 2002 I purchased a used 1998 VW Passat wagon. It had about 30K miles at the time. At 40K miles the engine coughed up a lung and stumbled to the side of the freeway wheezing like a dying carp. When I took it to the VW dealers, the technician poked around, advised the Service Writer who promptly told me it was my fault for using sub-standard oil. A year before my turbo died, I joined Norman Taylor and Associates. At the time, I was doing some research for Mr. Taylor’s second book Lemon Law The Standard Reference Guide.

I then suggested that the Service Writer was “less than accurate in his assessment of the defect”. If you read well between the lines, you probably understand I spoke firmly and colorfully allowing him to correctly understand what I thought of his assessment, personal habits and lineage. I also noted to him that I was an engineer and that I would be grateful if he would stop the baloney. While doing this I had my Lemon Law materials in my hand. The service writer, in an attempt to placate me, said he would discuss the situation with the Manager. This person came out to speak with me and said, because I was such a good customer—I wasn’t any such thing— he would speak to the District Representative from VW on my behalf. Ten minutes later he came out of his office all smiles to tell me that VW had agreed to replace my “sludged” turbo and pay all costs.

I knew from my California Lemon Law research that this is what we call a “Secret Warranty”. Better for VW to pay for the repairs than have me writing letters to NHTSA – The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If enough people did this, a recall for the defective Turbos and associated parts might have been issued and then VW would have known serious financial pain.

What can we learn from this? Dealers aren’t always forthcoming about the real cause of defects. The threat of the Lemon Law isn’t always a deterrent to sleazy behavior from the manufacturers or dealerships. However, it does teach us to question what we are told and not hesitate to get advice from California lemon law attorney.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties | No Comments

« Older Entries