California Lemon Law


Wednesday, 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 | 3 Comments

Monday, 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

Thursday, 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

Thursday, 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

Thursday, 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

Wednesday, 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

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

Lemon Law: Stop Being so Darn Nice

Patience it is said is a virtue. However, there are limits. Exceeding these limits can definitely prevent the consumer from exercising their right under the California lemon law. Recently I analyzed a vehicle to see if it qualified for the Lemon Law and was astonished by the consumer’s patience. The following is a generic summary of the client’s defects and the dealership’s response.

  • 1st Repair Attempt: @ 3760 miles: When coming to a stop there is a delay before shifting then the transmission shifts. It feels like you have been rear ended. The dealer lists various tests and concludes: could not verify driver’s concern. In a subsequent discussion with the client, she said the Service Writer and others were condescending and told her perhaps she didn’t know how to drive a modern high performance vehicle.
  • 2nd Repair Attempt: @ 11,800 miles: When coming to a stop or slowing down in stop-and-go traffic there is a delay before shifting then the transmission kicks hard. No problem found.
  • 3rd Repair Attempt: @ 23,500 miles: When coming to a stop or slowing down there is a delay before shifting then the transmission delays and kicks hard. No problem found.
  • 4th Repair Attempt: @ 36,800 miles: When slowing down in freeway traffic there is a delay before shifting then the transmission kicks hard. The dealership stated they searched for a software update and wonder of wonders; they found one and installed new transmission control software. After each attempted repair they asserted that the vehicle was now operating as designed. With the defect still present at this point and in some cases sooner, the consumer should contact a California Lemon Law attorney.
  • 5th Repair Attempt: @ 41,200 miles: When coming to a stop or slowing down in stop-and-go traffic there is a delay before shifting then the transmission kicks hard. This time they said the transmission fluid was low and that they would replace it as a “Goodwill” gesture. Extraordinary kindness!
  • 6th Repair Attempt: @ 47,100 miles: the transmission seizes while parked at work and will not move from PARK to DRIVE. Now the dealership is compelled to actually perform repairs. They disassemble the transmission and replace the control unit. Before she leaves, the service writer asks, “Have you been driving this car very hard?”

This vehicle was taken in twice more for transmission defects before she finally called Norman Taylor & Associates for help. Her reasoning was that the dealership employees were willing to help. As noted the consumer could have made a case after the fourth repair at which time the mileage was still low. Here’s the bottom line. Enough is enough! Don’t wait! You gave the dealership all of the repair attempts they were entitled to under the law. If they cannot repair the car at that point, it’s time to seek recourse under the California lemon law.

Bookmark and Share

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

Tuesday, October 5th, 2010

Toyota Settles One Unintended Acceleration Lawsuit

So, Toyota settles what is considered by some to be the strongest “Sudden Acceleration” lawsuit amongst hundreds of individual and class actions law suits. Toyota asserts that this terrifying incident was caused by a problem with the floor mat. You heard correctly, the floor mat.

This was not a California Lemon Law case; it was a Wrongful Death case. No details of the settlement have been provided by the various news outlets from which we can infer that the settlement included a confidentiality clause. Although we don’t know this as a fact, we can also infer that no admission of liability was part of the settlement. How does this work? Do they shrug and say, “we’ll pay these folks some money, but it wasn’t our fault?
Having settled the lawsuit, Toyota then urged a US judge to dismiss all lawsuits over sudden acceleration claims stating that they are based on anecdotes and failed to identify any specific defects in the vehicles.

Just a thought; if there were no specific defects in all of these vehicles, why did Toyota fight so hard to prevent anyone from learning the contents of the black box (crash recorder) and its stored history? Trade secrets? Cough ($^&$) Cough. Just a thought! The black box had a software glitch which has been well-reported.

If you were one of the hundreds of other consumers who experienced the frightfulness of trying to stop a car out of control and then have Toyota tell you that your experience was just an anecdote! An anecdote is defined as a short account of an interesting or humorous incident. Interesting or humorous!! Norman Taylor & Associates has listened to many consumers who experienced sudden acceleration events having varying degrees of scariness. Never once were consumer’s experiences considered anecdotes.

So the Toyota saga continues. I keep waiting for them to man-up and do the right thing instead of grinding anyone who even suggests that they may be at fault into the legal dirt.

Bookmark and Share

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

Friday, September 10th, 2010

California Lemon Law: Read the Manual, Please!

A recent study by Schrader, a company that creates tire pressure monitoring systems, showed that one in three people did not recognize the tire pressure warning light. Owning a vehicle also requires that consumers make themselves aware of how to operate the vehicle and recognize these warning indicators; information that is included in the Owner’s Manual.

At Norman Taylor and Associates we speak to many consumers who seek information regarding California Lemon Law and whether or not the law may apply to them. Part of the review process requires a first hand account from the consumer which describes the problems he or she is having with the vehicle; this includes information on which warning lights were triggered at the time the defect occurred. Sometimes warning lights are triggered that provide more information as to which systems require attention. Sometimes warning lights will not be activated at all; this does not necessarily mean that a defect is not present.

What can happen if a consumer does not read the Owner’s Manual? The dealer and the manufacturer may take advantage of the consumer’s lack of knowledge to deny various kinds of service and repairs. What the consumer does not know may potentially harm their ability to seek recourse under the California Lemon Law.

The manual has explicit instructions on types of maintenance and schedules. If a consumer decides to ignore maintenance and later experiences engine defects, for example, the dealer can and will say; “This is a non-warrantable repair because the lack of maintenance caused the oil to sludge which destroyed the engine.” It will be very difficult for the consumer to make a good case against their assertions. Good records of regularly scheduled maintenance will stop that foolishness quickly. Part of ownership is being aware of how to operate the vehicle, how to care for the vehicle, and what to do if anything should go wrong.

What should have been written on the front of the Owner’s Manual is, “Ignore the contents of this manual at your peril.” Knowing what’s in your Owner’s Manual is no guarantee that you will make a successful California Lemon Law case but it will prevent you from sabotaging yourself in pursuing a possible case.

Bookmark and Share

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

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

CA Lemon Law: The Extended Warranty

Here is a typical (unfortunately), bit of information offered by a potential CA Lemon Law client calling Norman Taylor & Associates to get help with his defective motor vehicle. When we asked about the date of the first repair attempt the date he gave was after the original warranty had expired: We told him this and he said, “Oh, no problem, I have an extended warranty.” Listen closely! Did you hear a sigh of disgust and disappointment from the interviewer? This is important; the disgust was not aimed at the caller. That would definitely be the wrong target.

Here’s why I am annoyed, ticked off, disgusted. You can’t purchase any instrument, guarantee, warranty, whatever that will extend the original warranty on a car or truck. Write that on the palm of your hand please. When your original warranty – usually 3 years, 36,000 miles; sometimes more – is done, that’s it there isn’t any more.

For the manufacturer or dealer or both to suggest that if you buy an extended warranty your original warranty is somehow made longer, is just so much horse hockey. Please don’t ask me to explain horse hockey. If it did extend your warranty, it would have a significant effect on your ability to access the provisions of the CA lemon law. No manufacturer will ever willingly do that.

There are exceptions; with Certified Pre-owned vehicles the manufacturer will often authorize additional warranty, sometimes as much as up to 100,000 miles; but this is rare. Also, when the manufacturer knows that there is a serious defect with a specific vehicle – BMW and the High Pressure Fuel Pump for example – they will increase the warranty of that specific part of the vehicle. But you cannot buy additional original warranty.

When you buy an extended warranty you are buying MAINTENANCE INSURANCE. That is correct. It’s insurance. Most of the time if it is applied to a repair, you will have to pay the deductible. It may be $50, $100 or more and the maintenance insurance pays for the rest. It’s not that it’s a bad thing as long as you understand exactly what it covers.

It is just like your regular insurance. It has nothing to do with the original warranty! That is why it fills me with disgust and other less charitable feelings toward manufacturers and dealers. It is an error (some might say a crime) of omission. It’s what they don’t tell you. The California Lemon Law covers a lot of ground but the defects must begin within the original warranty. If you bought an “extended warranty” thinking you have the same rights for remedies under the CA lemon law as you did with your original warranty, think again. If you are not sure, all us and we will go through the whole process together.

Bookmark and Share

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

« Older Entries