Rhode Island Lemon Law Statutes

The following words and phrases which are used in this chapter shall, for the purposes of this chapter, have the following meanings:

 

1. “Consumer” means a buyer, other than for purposes of resale, of a motor vehicle, any person to whom that motor vehicle is transferred for the same purposes during the duration of any express or implied warranty applicable to that motor vehicle, and any other person entitled by the terms of that warranty to enforce its obligations.
2. “Dealer” means any person engaged in the business of selling, offering to sell, soliciting, or advertising the sale of new motor vehicles.
3. “Lease price” means the aggregate of:
   1. Lessor’s actual purchase costs.
   2. Collateral charges, if applicable.
   3. Any fee paid to another to obtain the lease.
   4. Any insurance or other costs expended by the lessor for the benefit of the lessee.
   5. An amount equal to state and local sales taxes not otherwise included as collateral charges, paid by the lessor when the vehicle was initially purchased.
   6. An amount equal to five percent (5%) of the lessor’s actual purchase costs.
4. “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.
5. “Lessee cost” means the aggregate deposit and rental payments previously paid to the lessor for the leased vehicle.
6. “Lessor” means a person who holds title to a motor vehicle leased to a lessee under a written lease agreement or who holds the lessor’s rights under such agreement.
7. “Manufacturer” means any person, partnership, firm, association, corporation, or trust, resident or nonresident, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing or assembling new motor vehicles, or which is engaged in the business of importing new motor vehicles which are manufactured or assembled outside of the United States.
8. “Motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means an automobile, truck, motorcycle, or van having a registered gross vehicle weight of less than ten thousand pounds (10,000 lbs.), sold, leased, or replaced by a dealer or manufacturer after May 11, 1984, except that it shall not include a motorized camper as defined in § 31-1-3(q).
9. “Nonconformity” means any specific or generic defect or malfunction, or any concurrent combination of such defects or malfunctions, that substantially impairs the use, market value, or safety of a motor vehicle.
10. “Term of protection” means one year or fifteen thousand (15,000) miles of use from the date of original delivery of a new motor vehicle to the consumer, whichever comes first; or, in the case of a replacement vehicle provided by a manufacturer to a consumer under this chapter, one year or fifteen thousand (15,000) miles from the date of delivery to the consumer of that replacement vehicle, whichever comes first.

SECTION 31-5.2-2

If a motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranty of merchantability as defined in § 6A-2-314 and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as defined in § 6A-2-315, and the consumer or lessee reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer of the vehicle, its agent, or its authorized dealer or lessor during the term of protection, the manufacturer, its agent or its authorized dealer shall effect such repairs as are necessary to conform the vehicle to the warranty, notwithstanding the fact that those repairs are made after the expiration of the term. SECTION 31-5.2-3

It shall be an affirmative defense to any claim under this section: (1) that an alleged nonconformity does not substantially impair the use, market value, or safety of the vehicle, or (2) that a nonconformity is the result of abuse, neglect, or unauthorized substantial modification or alteration of the vehicle by the consumer or lessee. SECTION 31-5.2-5

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the rights or remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer or lessee under law. SECTION 31-5.2-7

If a manufacturer has established an informal dispute settlement procedure which complies in all respects with the provisions of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 703, as from time to time amended, or which has been approved by the federal trade commission or by the attorney general of this state, the provisions of § 31-5.2-3 concerning refunds or replacement shall not apply to any consumer or lessee who has not first resorted to the procedure or the procedure set forth in § 31-5.2-7.1. This section shall not apply unless the manufacturer, its agents, or its authorized dealer or lessor shall have provided the consumer or lessee with clear and conspicuous written notice of the procedure at the time of delivery of the motor vehicle. A decision resulting from such an informal dispute settlement procedure shall be binding upon the manufacturer if the consumer or lessee elects to accept the decision. The manufacturer shall perform its obligations as set forth in said decision within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days from the rendering of the decision. In no event shall a consumer or lessee who has resorted to an informal dispute settlement procedure be precluded from seeking the rights and/or remedies provided by this chapter. Any applicable statute of limitation including but not limited to that set forth in § 31-5.2-12 shall be tolled during the period from the initiation of a dispute settlement procedure until thirty (30) days following the rendering of a final decision in said process. SECTION 31-5.2-8

Any agreement entered into by a consumer or lessee for the purchase or lease of a new motor vehicle which waives, limits, or disclaims the rights set forth in this chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy. These rights shall inure to a subsequent transferee of the motor vehicle. SECTION 31-5.2-9

No motor vehicle that is returned to the manufacturer under the provisions of this chapter shall be resold or re-leased in the state without clear and conspicuous written disclosure to the prospective purchaser or lessee prior to resale of the fact that it was so returned due to a nonconformity. The attorney general shall prescribe the exact form and content of the disclosure statement. SECTION 31-5.2-10

An aggrieved consumer or lessee may bring an action under the Rules of Civil Procedure in the superior court to enforce the provisions of this chapter. SECTION 31-5.2-11

The court hearing a complaint brought by a consumer or lessee aggrieved by a violation of this chapter shall award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff. SECTION 31-5.2-12

Any action brought pursuant to this chapter shall be commenced within three (3) years of the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to the consumer or lessee or within two (2) years of the date on which the mileage on the motor vehicle reached fifteen thousand (15,000) miles, whichever is earlier. SECTION 31-5.2-13

A manufacturer’s failure to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a deceptive trade practice under the terms of chapter 13.1 of title 6. All of the public and private remedies provided for in chapter 13.1 of title 6 shall be available to enforce the provisions of this chapter.

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 Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island lemon laws on these pages is provided by T. Michael Flinn, attorney.