About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

19 U. Rich. L. Rev. 405 (1984-1985)
Virginia's Lemon Law: The Best Treatment for Car Owner's Canker

handle is hein.journals/urich19 and id is 415 raw text is: VIRGINIA'S LEMON LAW: THE BEST TREATMENT FOR CAR OWNER'S CANKER?* The consumer advocacy movement of the late 1970's induced the Con- gress and the state legislatures to enact numerous consumer protection statutes. Unfortunately, several years elapsed before the public and the legislatures realized that those statutes did not protect the consumer in what is frequently the consumer's most significant personal purchase-the automobile. While discount stores replace or refund an item which a purchaser has found defective, there is no such recourse for the man who invests thousands of dollars in an automobile that proves to be defective after he has driven it from the showroom. Responding to the inherent inequity in this situation, legislators in most states began preparing, in their 1983-84 sessions, statutes which emulate the lemon laws enacted in 1982 in Connecticut and California. Although lemon laws are little more than a merger of the Uniform Commercial Code's concepts of revocation and warranties,1 coupled with some of the Magnuson-Moss Act's procedures to protect those warranties,2 they specifically address the complexities of automobile sales by extending the inspection period for the consumer in his revocation and by defining a standard from which substantial im- pairment required for revocation may be inferred. They also incorporate the pre-litigation informal dispute settlement mechanisms and some of the attorneys' fees provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Act.3 Whether the lemon laws will protect consumers depends largely on the interpretation of the impairment clauses in these statutes. The inter- pretation will be influenced by court decisions predating the passage of the lemon laws. What Virginia may expect from its lemon law depends *The author wishes to thank the following persons for their cooperation and assistance: Keith Mead, Director of Mediation and Arbitration, Better Business Bureau, and Tom Gallagher, its Chief, for their graciousness, time, space, and wisdom; John R. Day, Consumer Relations Manager, General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Mich., for his permission of access to the Better Business Bureau files and his interest; Evan Johnson, Assistant Director, Center for Auto Safety, Washington, D. C., for the Lemon File materials as well as instructive discussions; Fred Ritenour, Regional Representative of Nissan, and Jim Rowe, Regional Chevrolet Representative, as well as the complainants involved, for permitting observation of arbitration hearings; and to Terry Mapp, Research Assistant, Virginia Legislative Service, for background materials on the formulation of Virginia's lemon law. 1. U.C.C. § 2-608 (1977). For a discussion of this and related provisions, see infra notes 20-40 and accompanying text. 2. Pub. L. No. 93-637, 88 Stat. 2183-93 (current version at 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312 (1982)). For a discussion of this Act, see infra notes 41-46 and accompanying text. 3. See discussion infra notes 47-51 and accompanying text. 405

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most