1. Since new cars sold in Vermont are covered by express warranties that can't be disclaimed, and an implied warranty of merchantability that can't be disclaimed or limited, why was it necessary to pass a lemon law?

    -----At some point, it's unreasonable to ask consumers to keep brining a new car in for repair (policy decision)
    -----car dealers actually supported the law, since it shifts burden (and consumers' anger) to manufacturers

2. Every time I bring my car back to the dealership for repair, they are required by law to give me
a. free parts and labor
b. a written warranty
c. a copy of the repair order
d. a rental vehicle

    -----4172 (d)

3. Why? What's the policy behind this requirement?

    -----Consumer needs information as evidence if he/she needs to file a claim

4. A vehicle is considered a "lemon" under the law if
a. after a reasonable number of attempts at repair, it does not conform to the manufacturer's express warranty
b. the same defect has been subject to repair three times or more, with the first repair occurring during the express warranty period
c. the vehicle has been out of service for 30 or more days during the express warranty period
d. the consumer is dissatisfied with any repair attempts

    -----Trick question?
    -----4172 (e) -- first line
    -----4172 (g) (1) and (2) creat presumptions

5. True or False: the law does not apply if the consumer is not the first owner of the vehicle.

    -----Law is called the "New Motor Vehicle Arbitration" Act
    -----Industry fought for years against a used car lemon law
    -----but see 4171 (definititions)  
       -----(2) defines consumer to include anyone to whom the vehicle is transferred during express warranty
       -----(9) defines "new motor vehicle" as being under the manufacturer's warranty
    -----issue is whether the first repair attempt occurred during the express warranty period (as we'll see in a minute)
       -----(I aregued for years that subsequent ownsers should be able to accumulate previous owners' repairs; to no avail)

6. The law applies where there are defects that
a. substantially impair the use of the vehicle
b. substantially impair the market value of the vehicle
c. substantially impair the safety of the vehicle
d. any of the above
e. none of the above; the law applies to all defects

    ----4172 (e) (second clause)
    -----4172 (f)

7. True or false: the 30-days "out of service" must be consecutive.

    -----4172 (g) (2)
    -----"cumulative"

8. A consumer may not use the lemon law process if she
a. has stopped making payments on the vehicle
b. previously used a manufacturer's dispute resolution process
c. both of the above are true
d. none of the above are true

    -----4173 (a) last sentence
    -----4173 (b)
    -----Explain role of manufacturers' arbitration boards and problems with them

Questions 9-13 relate to the following facts: Martha bought a new Kia Sportage on July 1, 2002. She paid $16,000. It came with a manufacturer's warranty good for 3 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first. In June, 2005 the brakes failed while Martha was driving on the interstate and she narrowly avoided a serious accident. The Kia dealer replaced the brake system. The odometer reading was 25,000. In mid-July, 2005 (after the expiration of the express warranty) the brakes failed again. Kia again replaced the brake system. In August, they failed again. The odometer reading was 30,000. Martha did not go back to Kia for another repair. Instead, Martha filed a claim with the Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board (MVAB) under Vermont's lemon law.

9. True or False: Martha is likely to lose the case because there were only two repair attempts.

    -----If it's a safety issue, may only require one repair (board has so ruled in past)
    -----presumption that three repairs makes vehicle a lemon, but doesn't require three repairs

10. What about the fact that only the first repair attempt occurred during the warranty period?

    -----4172 (g) (1)
    -----only the first repair must be during the warranty period

11. True or False: After filing, Kia is entitled to one additional attempt to repair the vehicle.

    -----4173 (d)

12. If Martha wins, she is entitled to
a. a replacement vehicle
b. a refund
c. either of the above, at her option
d. either of the above, at Kia's option

    -----4172 (e)
    -----I'm always surprised when consumers opt for a replacement vehicle
    -----it may difficult if the vehicle is several years old

13. If Martha receives a refund, the amount would be approximately
a. $16,000
b. $8,000
c. $12,000
d. $1,600

    -----4172 (e) establishes formula for refund
    -----based on mileage at first repair as numerator and 100,000 miles as denominator to determine "reasonable allowance for use"
    -----here, 25,000/100,000 = 25% x $16,000 = $4,000 subtracted for use

14. According to the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in Pecor v. General Motors, the defect in the vehicle must be present at the time of filing the claim
a. only if the consumer is filing under the 30 days' out of use provision
b. only if the consumer is filing under the three repair attempts provision
c. in both cases
d. in neither case must it be present

    -----this was the sole issue in the case
    -----4172 (g) (1)  says it has to exist; 4172 (g) (2) is silent on that
    -----as the court said (last sentence)--"if there were no continuing problems, the automobile would have been made available ....prior to the 30th day"

Questions 15-19 relate to the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in Muzzy v. Chevrolet

15. How many repair attempts had GM made at the time Muzzy filed with the MVAB?

    -----five

16. Was there yet another repair attempt made by GM? What was the result?

    -----yes; dealer installed a "special valve"
    -----GM claimed it was fixed

17. What did the Court say was the "main issue in this case"?

    -----whether the consumer's claim must be terminated if the manufacturer's last repair appears to be successful
    -----related to that: whether the standard of "satisfaction" in 4173 (d) is a subjective or objective standard

18. What were the four reasons the Court gave for its conclusion?

    -----1. statutory construction (p. 3)
       -----what does that mean?
            -----Look to the language of the statute and see if it's clear
             -----admitted it's not "unambiguous" in this case
             -----cited McClure case for meaning of "satisfaction"
             -----also noted that interpretation suggested by GM was rejected by legislature (really more legislative intent)

19. What do you think about the fairness of the decision? Is it fair to the manufacturer?