Hawaii Lemon Law Statutes

The legislature recognizes that a motor vehicle is a major consumer purchase and that a defective motor vehicle creates a hardship for the consumer. The legislature further recognizes that a duly franchised motor vehicle dealer is an authorized service agent of the manufacturer. It is the intent of the legislature that a good faith motor vehicle warranty complaint by a consumer be resolved by the manufacturer within a specified period of time. It is further the intent of the legislature to provide statutory procedures whereby a consumer may receive a replacement motor vehicle, or a full refund, for a motor vehicle which is not brought into conformity with the applicable express warranties, as provided in this chapter. Finally, it is the intent of the legislature to ensure that consumers are made aware of their rights under this chapter and are not refused the information, documents, or service necessary to exercise their rights.

Nothing in this chapter shall in any way limit or expand the rights or remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law.

When used in this section unless the context otherwise requires:

1. ” Business day” means any day during which the service departments of authorized dealers of the manufacturer of the motor vehicle are normally open for business.
2. ” Collateral charges” means those additional charges to a consumer wholly incurred as a result of the acquisition of the motor vehicle. For the purposes of this chapter, collateral charges include, but are not limited to, manufacturer-installed or agent-installed items, general excise tax, license and registration fees, title charges, and similar government charges.
3. ” Consumer” means the purchaser, other than for purposes of resale, or the lessee of a motor vehicle, any person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred during the duration of the express warranty applicable to the motor vehicle, and any other person entitled to enforce the obligations of the express warranty.
4. ” Express warranty” means any written warranty issued by the manufacturer, or any affirmation of fact or promise made by the manufacturer, excluding statements made by the dealer, in connection with the sale or lease of a motor vehicle to a consumer, which relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that the motor vehicle shall conform to the affirmation, promise, or description or that the material or workmanship is free of defects or will meet a specified level of performance.
5. ” Incidental charges” means those reasonable costs incurred by the consumer, including, but not limited to, towing charges and the costs of obtaining alternative transportation which are directly caused by the nonconformity or nonconformities which are the subject of the claim, but shall not include loss of use, loss of income, or personal injury claims.
6. ” Lemon law rights period” means the term of the manufacturer’s express warranty, the period ending two years after the date of the original delivery of a motor vehicle to a consumer, or the first 24,000 miles of operation, whichever occurs first.
7. ” Lessee” means any consumer who leases a motor vehicle for one year or more pursuant to a written lease agreement which provides that the lessee is responsible for repairs to such motor vehicle, or any consumer who leases a motor vehicle pursuant to a lease-purchase agreement.
8. ” Motor vehicle” means a self-propelled vehicle primarily designed for the transportation of persons or property over public streets and highways which is used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. For purposes of this definition, a “motor vehicle” also includes a “demonstrator”, which means a vehicle assigned by a dealer for the purpose of demonstrating qualities and characteristics common to vehicles of the same or similar model or type, but does not include mopeds, motorcycles, or motor scooters, as those terms are defined in chapter 286, or vehicles over 10,000 pounds, gross vehicle weight rating. For purposes of this definition, a “motor vehicle” also includes (1) an individually registered vehicle used for an individual’s business purposes and for personal, family, or household purposes; and (2) a vehicle owned or leased by a sole proprietorship, corporation or partnership which has purchased or leased no more than one vehicle per year, used for household, individual, or personal use in addition to business use.
9. ” Nonconformity” means a defect, malfunction, or condition that fails to conform to the motor vehicle’s applicable express warranty and that substantially impairs the use, market value, or safety of a motor vehicle, but does not include a defect, malfunction, or condition that results from an accident, abuse, neglect, modification, or alteration of the motor vehicle by persons other than the manufacturer, its agent, distributor, or authorized dealer.
10. ” Purchase price” means the cash price appearing in the sales agreement or contract and paid for the motor vehicle, including any net allowance for a trade-in vehicle. Where the consumer is a second or subsequent purchaser and the arbitration award is for a refund of the motor vehicle, “purchase price” means the purchase price of the second or subsequent purchase not to exceed the purchase price paid by the original purchaser.
11. ” Reasonable offset” for use means the number of miles attributable to a consumer up to the date of the third repair attempt of the same nonconformity which is the subject of the claim, the date of the first repair attempt of a nonconformity that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, or the date of the thirtieth (30th) cumulative business day when the vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of one or more nonconformities, whichever occurs first. The reasonable offset for use shall be equal to one percent of the purchase price for every thousand miles of use.
12. ” Replacement motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle which is identical or reasonably equivalent to the motor vehicle to be replaced, as the motor vehicle to be replaced existed at the time of original acquisition, including any service contract, undercoating, rustproofing, and factory or dealer installed options. A reasonable offset shall be made for the use of the motor vehicle and an additional offset may be made for loss to the fair market value of the vehicle resulting from damage beyond normal wear and tear, unless the damage resulted from the nonconformity.
13. ” Substantially impairs” means to render the motor vehicle unfit, unreliable, or unsafe for warranted or normal use, or to significantly diminish the value of the motor vehicle.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is a Federal Law that protects the buyer of any product which costs more than $25 and comes with an express written warranty. This law applies to any product that you buy that does not perform as it should.

Your car is a major investment, rationalized by the peace of mind that flows from its expected dependability and safety. Accordingly, you are entitled to expect an automobile properly constructed and regulated to provide reasonably safe, trouble-free, and dependable transportation – regardless of the exact make and model you bought. Unfortunately, sometimes these principles do not hold true and defects arise in automobiles. Although one defect is not actionable, repeated defects are as there exists a generally accepted rule that unsuccessful repair efforts render the warrantor liable. Simply put, there comes a time when “enough is enough” – when after having to take your car into the shop for repairs an inordinate number of times and experiencing all of the attendant inconvenience, you are entitled to say, ‘That’s all,’ and revoke, notwithstanding the seller’s repeated good faith efforts to fix the car. The rationale behind these basic principles is clear: once your faith in the vehicle is shaken, the vehicle loses its real value to you and becomes an instrument whose integrity is impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension. The question thus becomes when is “enough”?

As you know, enough is never enough from your warrantor’s point of view and you should simply continue to have your defective vehicle repaired – time and time again. However, you are not required to allow a warrantor to tinker with your vehicle indefinitely in the hope that it may eventually be fixed. Rather, you are entitled to expect your vehicle to be repaired within a reasonable opportunity. To this end, both the federal Moss Warranty Act, and the various state “lemon laws,” require repairs to your vehicle be performed within a reasonable opportunity.

Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a warrantor should perform adequate repairs in at least two, and possibly three, attempts to correct a particular defect. Further, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s reasonableness requirement applies to your vehicle as a whole rather than to each individual defect that arises. Although most of the Lemon Laws vary from state to state, each individual law usually require a warrantor to cure a specific defect within four to five attempts or the automobile as a whole within thirty days. If the warrantor fails to meet this obligation, most of the lemon laws provide for a full refund or new replacement vehicle. Further, this reasonable number of attempts/reasonable opportunity standard, whether it be that of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or that of the Lemon Laws, is akin to strict liability – once this threshold has been met, the continued existence of a defect is irrelevant and you are still entitled to relief.

One of the most important parts of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is its fee shifting provision. This provision provides that you may recover the attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of your case if you are successful – independent of how much you actually win. That rational behind this fee shifting provision is to twofold: (1) to ensure you will be able to vindicate your rights without having to expend large sums on attorney’s fees and (2) because automobile manufacturers are able to write off all expenses of defense as a legitimate business expense, whereas you, the average consumer, obviously does not have that kind of economic staying power. Most of the Lemon Laws contain similar fee shifting provisions.

You may also derive additional warranty rights from the Uniform Commercial Code; however, the Code does not allow you in most states to recover your attorney fees and is also not as consumer friendly as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or the various state lemon laws.

The narrative information on Magnuson-Moss, UCC and Hawaii lemon laws on these pages is provided by Marshall Meyers, attorney.

The Uniform Commercial Code or UCC has been enacted in all 50 states and some of the territories of the United States. It is the primary source of law in all contracts dealing with the sale of products. The TARR refers to Tender, Acceptance, Rejection, Revocation and applies to different aspects of the consumer’s “relationship” with the purchased goods.

TENDER – The tender provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code contained in Section2-601 provide that the buyer is entitled to reject any goods that fail in any respect to conform to the contract. Unfortunately, new cars are often technically complex and their innermost workings are beyond the understanding of the average new car buyer. The buyer, therefore, does not know whether the goods are then conforming.

ACCEPTANCE – The new car buyer accepts the goods believing and expecting that the manufacturer will repair any problem he has with the goods under the warranty.

REJECTION – The new car buyer may discover a problem with the vehicle within the first few miles of his purchase. This would allow the new car buyer to reject the goods. If the new car buyer discovers a defect in the car within a reasonable time to inspect the vehicle, he may reject the vehicle. This period is not defined. On the one hand, the buyer must be given a reasonable time to inspect and that reasonable time to inspect will be held as an acceptance of the vehicle. The Courts will decide this reasonable time to inspect based on the knowledge and experience of the buyer, the difficulty in discovering the defect, and the opportunity to discover the defect.
The following is an example of a case of rejection: Mr. Zabriskie purchase a new 1966 Chevrolet Biscayne. After picking up the car on Friday evening, while en route to his home 2.5 miles away, and within 7/10ths of a mile from the dealership, the car stalled and stalled again within 15 feet. Thereafter, the car would only drive in low gear. The buyer rejected the vehicle and stopped payment on his check. The dealer contended that the buyer could not reject the car because he had driven it around the block and that was his reasonable opportunity to inspect. The New Jersey Court said;

It is suggested that Courts will tend to excuse use by consumers if possible.

REVOCATION – What happens when the consumer has used the new car for a lengthy period of time? This is the typical lemon car case. The UCC provides that a buyer may revoke his acceptance of goods whose non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to him when he has accepted the goods without discovery of a non-conformity because it was difficult to discover or if he was assured that non-conformities would be repaired. Of course, the average new car buyer does not learn of the nonconformity until hundreds of thousands of miles later. And because quality is job one, and manufacturers are competing on the basis of their warranties, the consumer always is assured that any noncomformities he does discover will be remedied.
What is a noncomformity substantially impairing the value of the vehicle?

1. A noncomformity may include a number of relatively minor defects whose cumulative total adds up to a substantial impairment. This is the “Shake Faith” Doctrine first stated in the Zabrisikie case. “For a majority of people the purchase of a new car is a major investment, rationalized by the peace of mind that flows from its dependability and safety. Once their faith is shaken, the vehicle loses not only its real value in their eyes, but becomes an instrument whose integrity is substantially impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension”.
2. A substantial noncomformity may include a failure or refusal to repair the goods under the warranty. In Durfee V. Rod Baxter Imports, the Minnesota Court held that the Saab owner that was plagued by a series of annoying minor defects and stalling, which were never repaired after a number of attempts, could revoke, “if repairs are not successfully undertaken within a reasonable time”, the consumer may elect to revoke.
3. Substantial Non Conformity and Lemon Laws often define what may be considered a substantial impairment. These definitions have been successfully used to flesh out the substantial impairment in the UCC.

Additional narrative information on Magnusson-Moss, UCC and Hawaii lemon laws on these pages is provided by T. Michael Flinn, attorney.