California Lemon Law Guide: Reasonable Continued Use and Reasonable Chance to Repair — Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Company
Many times our clients are compelled to continue use of the lemons sold them. Many have no second or alternative transportation, many can’t afford to keep paying for the lemon and buy or rent a replacement. In California, there is no legal requirement that the consumer must discontinue use of the vehicle according to the holding in Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Company, 214 Cal.App.3d 897 (1990).
The Ibrahim case is also notable for its discussion of the “lemon law presumption” that the manufacturer has had reasonable chance to repair and must now buy back a lemon. The Court noted that the lemon law has a “presumption” where the vehicle has been in for service 4 or more times, or in the shop for 30 or more days, all within the first 12 months/ 12,000 miles. (The time period has since been increased to 18 months / 18,000 miles.) The presumption is that the vehicle is a lemon and must be repurchased if that has occurred. But the vehicle can still qualify as a lemon, if it does not meet those specifics. There just will be no PRESUMPTION it is iemon. As the Court found: “Unreasonableness may still be found even if a new vehicle has been out of service for less than 30 days or if there have been fewer than four attempts to repair for the same problem.”
Ibrahim also is notable for its discussion of what a “defect” is. In the lemon law statue they refer to “nonconformity to warranty.” Ibrahim states “‘Nonconformity’ means a nonconformity which substantially impairs the use, value or safety…” “This definition is nothing more than a means of describing what the average person would understand to be a defect.”
The case also clarified that franchise dealerships, for example a Ford dealership, is an “agent” of Ford the manufacturer, and that delivering lemons to franchise dealerships for repair counts as giving the manufacturer (e.g., Ford) a chance to repair.
Ibrahim also clarified that the 2 X actual damage penalty under the lemon law shall be assessed against the manufacturer if the manufacturer was wilfull in its failure to offer a buyback. “Wilfull” simply means “That the person knows what he is doing, intends to do what he is doing, and is a free agent.” Therefore, if the manufacturer knew of its obligation to buyback the lemon, but declined to fulfill the obligation, it is subject to the penalty. Malice or morally blameworthy conduct does not have to be shown.