Key Factors in the Massachusetts Lemon Law The Massachusetts Lemon Law was created to protect buyers from purchasing new or used vehicles that have are unsafe to be driven or have substantial defects. It was designed so that these types of cars are not driven on Massachusetts roads. The Massachusetts Office of Consumer affairs and Business Regulation administers the Massachusetts Lemon Law. Below is a list of the key factors in the Massachusetts Lemon Laws, so that consumer are more informed of their rights provided by the law. New and leased vehicles In the state of Massachusetts, laws exist to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle that has substantial defects that impair any of the following: ability to use a vehicle, the vehicle’s market value, or the safety of the vehicle. Your new or leased vehicle is protected for one year or 15,000 miles from the date of delivery, whichever is reached first by the vehicle. Your new or used car qualifies as a “lemon” if the vehicle has been repaired for the same defect 3 or more times or if the total time spent on repair has equaled or exceeded 15 business days. Used Vehicles …show more content…
The Massachusetts Lemon Law protects any used car, truck, van, or demonstration vehicle as has been defined by Massachusetts state standards. Under the Lemon Law, dealers are required to conduct any repairs that compromise the use or safety of the vehicle during the warranty period. If you caused these problems yourself, however, whether through negligence or making changes to the vehicle, then the dealer is not recovered to cover the repairs under the warranty. If the vehicle is purchased through a private part seller, then it is required that the buyers are informed of any defects that could compromised the use or safety of a
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
The Scope of the State's Power in Matters Affecting Health: The Case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905
Non-compete agreements are usually found in employments contracts in where a company wants to prevent their employees from working for a competing company. The focus of the non-compete agreement is to protect a company’s business interest and trade secrets but, a non-compete covenant must be laboriously drafted to follow the state’s regulation in order to be enforced in court. There is an enormous discrepancy when it comes to cases that deal with non-compete agreements since it deals with revising if the non-compete agreement was lawful to begin with; courts do not have a consistent approach to this. A lot of companies request the courts to enforce the covenant but, in most cases, the agreement is unenforceable due to the unethical and unlawful
Marty Anderson was an employee for Family Auto Repair (FAR) in Memphis and was transfer to their Jackson store, which was an hour and a half from his house. The company allow Marty to use a company vehicle to make his long commute, although he had his own vehicle. The terms of the explicit permission to use the vehicle were: to and from work, during lunch breaks, and to deliver and transfer items between FAR’s two facilities either before work or on his way home. Marty Anderson became a victim of the dilemma when he fell asleep at the wheel and injured a man, Steve Spritzer, in the company vehicle, at a time when he did not have explicit permission to be using the vehicle. Marty Anderson’s case can be argued in his favor or in FAR’s favor,
A Michigan automobile finance company finance consumer purchases of automobiles from its affiliated dealers. Their contract stated: If a customer purchased a car from one of the dealerships, and needed financing to pay for the car, the dealer would refer the customer to the finance company. If the company did finance the purchase, a retail installment contract was entered into between the consumer and the finance company. The finance company would then pay the car dealer the full purchase price of the car, including sales tax. Under Michigan General Sales Tax Law, the car dealer would then pay over the sales tax to the State of Michigan for the purchase. There were some instances when the customer defaulted and the finance company assumed full risk of the collecting the purchase price and sales tax from the consumer. If the finance company was unable to collect, they looked to the State of Michigan Sales Tax department for a refund for the sales tax paid to the dealers. Under the Michigan General Sales Tax Law, does the State of Michigan owe the finance company a refund?
The Worcester cold storage fire that occurred in Worcester Massachusetts on December, 3 1999 provided us with another tragic example to the lurking dangers to the United States fire service. The Worcester fire claimed the lives of 6 firefighters who came to work that morning not realizing that this would be their last shift . The strategic and tactical lessons that were learned from this fire need to be heeded by fire department nationwide. However another important lesson is not as well know. The lesson learned by the Worcester Fire department is that the law is very instrumental to emergency services operations.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court. It was
quality. This act sparked the test case Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896. Homer Adolph Plessy, who was 1/8th African-American, sat in the whites-only car and was consequently arrested. Plessy’s side argued that the Separate Car Act was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet, the majority ruled that although segregation was separate, it was equal. Therefore, segregation became legal in all states.
The plaintiff firm of surveyors bought a second-hand Rolls Royce from the defendants which developed serious defects after 2,000. It was held that the firm was acting as a consumer and that to buy in the course of a business 'the buying of cars must form at the very least an integral part of the buyer's business or a necessary incidental thereto'. It was emphasised that only in those circumstances could the buyer be said to be on equal footing with his seller in terms of bargaining strength.
There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk-benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change (Legget, C., 1999). This was a ground breaking decision because it failed to use the common standard of whether a harm was a result of an action on trespass or harm as a result of an action on the case (Ferguson, A., 2005).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently launched a public safety campaign targeting defective vehicles. Given the rapid rise in auto recalls, the agency now recommends that consumers check for open recalls at least twice a year and to get their vehicles fixed as soon as possible. NHTSA provides a free tool that allows car owners to search for recalls using their vehicle identification number (VIN).
Class action lawsuits on behalf of consumers will likely follow to help owners recoup the “diminished value” of their vehicles. When a fix is announced, it is expected that the cars will lose performance and suffer a corresponding decline in fuel economy.
These constant repairs and malfunctions can create quite a financial burden on the owner of the car. However, fortunately, there are laws in place in every state, called Lemon Laws, that help the owners of these cars.
- Unsafe products can be banned ( product faulty and can not be sold again) or recalled (all stock taken back repaired and then put on the shelves)
...harged for i.e. a warranty must come free of charge with the product. For example, the price of a car includes the manufacturer warranty that comes with it. Insurance products are heavily regulated and have dozens of federal and state regulations and much oversight. This is meant to ensure that such companies treat all insurance customers fairly and that they maintain enough reserves to pay for any potential claims. Although there are some insurance products sold at the F&I dealership (such as Mechanical Breakdown Insurance, GAP Insurance), for the most part they are 'contracts' between the customer and the service provider - in most cases, to reimburse the customer should something untoward happen to an asset of some kind that the customer is purchasing. In fact, the technical term most used for such products is 'Contractual Liability Insurance Program (CLIP)'.