Daimlerchrysler Vs Spitzer
Daomine Zamilus
Case Name: DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer
Case Citation: 782 NYS2d 610 (Sup. 2004)
Procedural History: By order dated September 14,2004, the Supreme Court, Albany County dismissed the petition.
Issue: Did the petitioners establish their entitlement to Article 78 proceedings to enjoin respondents from applying the new interpretation of the New Car Lemon Law regarding the repair presumptions that consumer vehicle remain defective at the time of trial or arbitration?
Rule: New Car Lemon Law, which was enacted in 1983 a remedial statue. New Car Lemon law must be liberally construed in favor of the those the statue was enacted to protect new-car consumers. New Car Lemon Law statutory language “four or more times” and the “nonconformity …show more content…
Consequently, under such circumstance, the Attorney General contended that manufactures if given the opportunity to rebut the repair presumption by showing that the four repair attempts were not reasonable for the defective vehicle and that additional repair opportunities after the fourth attempt failed which resulted in fixing the defect was a reasonable number of attempts. The Court agreed that the language “four or more times” clearly refers, that the consumers has allowed his vehicle to be subjected to more than four repair attempts and the vehicle is still defective. Therefore, the consumer is entitled under the New Car Lemon Law to a presumption of the reasonable number of repair attempts. New Car Lemon Law interpretation stated that the presumption can be rebutted or the manufacture can provide an affirmative defense. The Petitioner rebutted to the statue regarding the statutory language “four or more” and “but such nonconformity, defect or condition continues to exist”. According to the Court, the petitioner’s interpretation focuses on the entitlement of the consumer recovery under the New Car Lemon Law and the entitlement of a consumer to make a Lemon Law claim a presumption that can be rebutted. The statutory language “but… continues to exist” has nothing to do with the condition of the vehicle at the time of trial or arbitration. However, the statutory language refers to and modifies the number of repairs attempts a consumer is entitle for relief under the New Car Lemon Law. The Court, stated that the petitioners’ interpretation of repair presumption takes some of the guidelines of the statue because undermined the statue
Case Name: DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer
Case Citation: 782 NYS2d 610 (Sup. 2004)
Procedural History: By order dated September 14,2004, the Supreme Court, Albany County dismissed the petition.
Issue: Did the petitioners establish their entitlement to Article 78 proceedings to enjoin respondents from applying the new interpretation of the New Car Lemon Law regarding the repair presumptions that consumer vehicle remain defective at the time of trial or arbitration?
Rule: New Car Lemon Law, which was enacted in 1983 a remedial statue. New Car Lemon law must be liberally construed in favor of the those the statue was enacted to protect new-car consumers. New Car Lemon Law statutory language “four or more times” and the “nonconformity …show more content…
Consequently, under such circumstance, the Attorney General contended that manufactures if given the opportunity to rebut the repair presumption by showing that the four repair attempts were not reasonable for the defective vehicle and that additional repair opportunities after the fourth attempt failed which resulted in fixing the defect was a reasonable number of attempts. The Court agreed that the language “four or more times” clearly refers, that the consumers has allowed his vehicle to be subjected to more than four repair attempts and the vehicle is still defective. Therefore, the consumer is entitled under the New Car Lemon Law to a presumption of the reasonable number of repair attempts. New Car Lemon Law interpretation stated that the presumption can be rebutted or the manufacture can provide an affirmative defense. The Petitioner rebutted to the statue regarding the statutory language “four or more” and “but such nonconformity, defect or condition continues to exist”. According to the Court, the petitioner’s interpretation focuses on the entitlement of the consumer recovery under the New Car Lemon Law and the entitlement of a consumer to make a Lemon Law claim a presumption that can be rebutted. The statutory language “but… continues to exist” has nothing to do with the condition of the vehicle at the time of trial or arbitration. However, the statutory language refers to and modifies the number of repairs attempts a consumer is entitle for relief under the New Car Lemon Law. The Court, stated that the petitioners’ interpretation of repair presumption takes some of the guidelines of the statue because undermined the statue