Most analysts figured that the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies would hurt their sales and it appears that the experts were right. Ford, on the other hand, seems to have won a lot of consumer confidence by refusing government bailouts and remaining self-sufficient.

Chrysler fared much worse than GM, at least on a one-month basis and a good question is why the difference? There is probably not a single answer. One reason might be in how the two manufacturers have dealt with warranty matters (i.e. demands for buybacks under the California lemon law and other state lemon laws) while under bankruptcy court protection. Early in the process, GM got court approval to continue to honor warranty claims as it always had. Chrysler, on the other hand, created a lot of ill will and bad publicity by bouncing settlement checks. It has tried to use the bankruptcy to change the terms of settlements previously agreed to. Did the public conclude that Chrysler was using the bankruptcy to hide from its responsibilities? Hard to tell for sure, but one thing is certain. Your rights to warranty protection are an essential part of car ownership. When these are threatened, you should request legal assistance and consider taking your future business elsewhere.

A hint of what may become the prevailing attitude amongst manufacturers happened during the recent Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings. It appeared as though all outstanding lemon law claims and the bouncing checks were going to be swept up and discharged in the bankruptcy leaving many lemon owners out in the cold. There was a public uproar carried by various consumer groups speaking on behalf of those who had purchased a lemon, went through the process and were poised for their refund. The media was such that it gave Chrysler a black eye, and in what appeared to a  PR effort to secure a future with the buying public the “New Chrysler” switched its course and decided to honor the outstanding lemon law claims.

Just prior to GM’s recent bankruptcy filing I was informed by someone in a position to know that GM did nto want to make the same mistake Chrysler did by giving the appearance that it didn’t give a hoot about its buying public or those stuck with a lemon. I took this to mean GM is already looking to the future with a message they will stand behind their product, which includes honoring the lemon law.

Auto manufacturers in this country will survive only if they deliver a high quality product and stellar service. No manufacturer is immune from producing a bad one every now and then. It is the nature of mass production. So when it does happen, manufacturers are smart to stand behind their product and “exchange in abundance” with their public by honoring lemon law claims. Gone should be the days when a consumer has to fight to get what the manufacturer promised at the time of sale; a vheicle free of defects for a given term.