The Lemon Law Experts of Shainfeld & Anvar Comment on the Latest Chrysler … – Midland Daily News

The Chrysler Group has recalled nearly 350,000 cars and SUVs from 2008 due to faulty ignition switches, which thus far has caused one crash and no injuries. The defect causes the ignition to turn off by slipping out of position, causing the vehicle to stall during use.

(PRWEB) October 05, 2014

According to the Associated Press and media outlets sources such as USA Today, ABC, and even, the Chrysler Group has recalled nearly 350,000 cars and SUVs from 2008 due to faulty ignition switches, which thus far has caused one crash and no injuries. The defect causes the ignition to turn off by slipping out of position, causing the vehicle to stall during use (Source: AP Sept 25, 2014; Chrysler spokespeople have confirmed that, “If the ignition position gets stuck between the “start” and the “on” position, then the wipers and windshield defroster will not be functional (Source: AP Sept 25, 2014). However, if it would get lodged to “off” or “accessory” then a worst case scenario would occur, such as locking the power steering or shutting off the engine.” This has led to potential problems causing the automobile manufacturer to quickly take action to notify consumers by issuing a recall for the 2008 models of the following vehicles: Jeep Commander, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum (Source: AP Sept 25, 2014).

To remedy the situation, Chrysler wants owners of these vehicles to use their keys without a keychain, because the added weight could cause the ignition switch to move out of position (Source: AP Sept 25, 2014). Chrysler does not want to take any chances after GM recalled over 16 million vehicles due to a similar ignition problem causing at least 19 deaths and over 30 front end collisions (Source: AP Sept 25, 2014). In addition, consumers of these vehicles are being warned to make sure their keys are set in the “on” position when switching their ignition on (Source: AP Sept 25, 2014).

The Lemon Law Experts of Shainfeld & Anvar have been monitoring the automobile industry for years, specifically when it comes to recalls and the Lemon Law. Shainfeld & Anvar have provided their clients in California with information and awareness about the State’s consumer protection law (California Lemon Law) that has safeguarded them from defective vehicles, also known as lemons. The Lemon Law Experts believe that “consumers need to know their rights because these large auto manufacturers are not disclosing all of the information to them. We are here to look out for them if they have a defected or faulty vehicle.” This is especially the case since Chrysler has previously recalled vehicles, including the Dodge Journey, Dodge Caravan, and Chrysler Town & Country, from model years 2007 through 2009 for similar ignition issues.

The Lemon Law Experts are fighting for their clients by protecting their rights against big auto manufacturers, including Chrysler and GM, adding that, “After minimizing the safety defects for years, someone has to hold the auto manufacturers accountable.” Shainfeld & Anvar say, if their client has one of these vehicles being recalled, they “will fight for them to receive a new vehicle replacement or for monetary compensation including all costs related to the defects.”

If a consumer has a Chrysler vehicle that has been repeatedly repaired, they may be entitled to protections under Federal and State lemon laws and be entitled to a refund, replacement or cash compensation. To assess the case and find out if the vehicle is a lemon, contact the Lemon Law Experts of Shainfeld & Anvar for a fast and free case evaluation.

The Lemon Law Experts are always able to provide further clarity about pursuing lemon law rights and protecting all consumers from lemon law misfortunes. The Lemon Law Experts have helped thousands of clients recoup their costs of their impaired vehicles. Call 1-855-598-3909 today for a case evaluation.

For the original version on PRWeb visit:

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Arkansas Lemon Law Protects Car Buyers – MyArkLaMiss (press release) (blog)

LITTLE ROCK – When considering a vehicle purchase, consumers may choose to invest in a new car in hopes that a new vehicle may be more reliable than a used one.

Generally, newer cars cost substantially less to maintain and most repairs are covered by a manufacturer’s warranty. In rare circumstances, though, a new car may be considered a “lemon” and require repeated service and repairs. Arkansas law protects consumers in the event that new vehicle is a “lemon.”

Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued this consumer alert today to inform Arkansas consumers about the state’s New Motor Vehicle Quality Assurance Act, also known as the Arkansas Lemon Law.

“Newer cars are expected to be more reliable than used vehicles, so consumers would be justifiably upset if they experience multiple problems with their new vehicles,” McDaniel said. “Arkansas’s Lemon Law ensures that consumers who buy a ‘lemon’ are able to get a refund or a replacement.”

Asserting a claim under Arkansas’s Lemon Law should be considered a last resort for consumers if a new vehicle experiences multiple problems. Only vehicles that are under two years old or have fewer than 24,000 miles are subject to Lemon Law provisions. The two-year or 24,000-mile stipulation still applies even if ownership is transferred during that period.

The law does not automatically give car buyers a right to a refund or new vehicle, even in the case of repeated problems. New cars are sold with a manufacturer-provided warranty. Defects are repaired by the manufacturer’s authorized dealer during the term of the warranty. The Lemon Law may be applicable only when the car suffers multiple problems and the buyer loses confidence in the manufacturer’s ability to provide a long-lasting repair.

A vehicle may be considered a lemon if there have been multiple, unsuccessful  attempts to fix a problem that impairs the use, value or safety of the vehicle. If problems persist to a point where a vehicle has been in the shop for an extended period of time, the Lemon Law may also apply.

Exceptions to the Lemon Law are for mopeds,  motorcycles, motor-home living quarters, most vehicles weighing more than 13,000 pounds and vehicles that have been significantly altered after being purchased from a dealer. Also, cars that are more than two years old and have more than 24,000 miles are commonly sold “as-is” and the seller is not responsible for any defects, known or unknown.

The Attorney General’s Consumer Guide to the Arkansas Lemon Law contains detailed information about the law and offers tips for consumers who believe their vehicles may be a lemon. The guide, available at, helps consumers assert and complete a Lemon Law claim without the assistance of an attorney.

Automobile dealers are required to provide a copy of the Attorney General’s Lemon Law guide to every new vehicle owner.

For more information about the Lemon Law, or for other consumer information, visit or call (800) 482-8982.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

KIYC: Lemon Law gets NJ couple Judy Peters and Anthony Merrell a new Jeep – News 12 New Jersey

Updated September 25, 2014 7:39 PM

A woman from Ocean County has a brand

A woman from Ocean County has a brand new Jeep. (September 25, 2014 7:14 PM)

A woman from Ocean County has a brand new Jeep, all because she paid close attention to a Kane In Your Corner special about the New Jersey Lemon Law.

Judy Peters and Anthony Merrell were happy when they bought a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee, until the problems started.

“The service engine light came on,” Anthony says. “Got it back within a day. Probably within another 3-4 weeks, it came…

Content Preview This content is exclusive for Optimum, Time Warner®, Comcast®, customers with access to News 12.

Already registered or an Optimum customer?
Log in

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-‘ + ord + ‘-oop’); });


advertisement | advertise on News 12

Related Stories

Most viewed

advertisement | advertise on News 12

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Car dealers need better education on lemon law, official say – WCVB Boston

The state’s top consumer advocate is unhappy with the performance of car dealers when it comes to following the Massachusetts lemon law.

Watch the report

Nearly half of more than 1,900 surveyed new and used cars for sale were missing the mandatory bright-yellow stickers that inform consumers of their rights under the state’s lemon laws, according to a survey conducted by the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation.

“Not only is it important for car dealers to present the lemon law information to consumers so that they can make more informed decisions about their vehicle purchase, it’s the law,” said Barbara Anthony, undersecretary of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation.

The survey examined both new and used cars for sale at 71 dealerships in 23 Massachusetts communities. Overall, 57.8 percent of the 1,921 cars surveyed had stickers showing on the car’s window.

Sixteen dealers, like Cambridge Honda, had perfect compliance with the law, but 17 dealers had zero compliance, failing to display stickers on any vehicles. 

“Unfortunately there are a lot of fly by night dealerships — small used car lots — that really do not care very much about compliance with the state’s lemon law,” said Anthony. 

Team 5 Investigates set out to get some answers, visiting some of the zero compliance dealerships.

Peter Frederico, owner of Master Used Cars in Somerville, told Team 5 he did not know he needed to have the lemon law stickers.

Frederico and two other owners Team 5 talked with promised they would get them right away.

“I want to do it the correct way,” said Frederico.

When Team 5 checked back in with Frederico and other dealers a few days later, lemon law stickers were now being displayed on every car vehicle.

The Massachusetts Independent Car Dealers Association told Team 5 that it’s not the dealers but education that is the main problem.

In Massachusetts, cities and towns give out licenses to sell cars, not the state.

“We feel the state should be educating the dealers more,” said Melissa Otis of MIADA.

Anthony said that the state plans on providing more education for cities and towns as they issue licenses.

“My advice is if you go shopping for a car and you don’t see the lemon law sticker, go to another dealer,” said Anthony.

Anthony said she will turn over her findings to the Attorney General’s Office and urge them to take action.

Dealers could face a $5,000 fine for each violation.

Last year, the Office of Consumer Affairs created an online tool that walks consumers through the provisions and eligibility requirements of the state’s lemon laws and arbitration programs.

For more information on the state’s new and leased car lemon law, used vehicle warranty law and lemon aid law, click here. 

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by: Karen Anderson

Jeep destroyer only needs a little more for 'Lemon Law' – The Sunshine Coast Daily

ONE man’s crusade for safety is nearing its destructive climax, with Ashton Wood needing only a further $3300 to destroy his Jeep Grand Cherokee.

As part of a quirky public campaign for a “Lemon Law” to protect buyers from unknowingly buying defective vehicles, Mr Wood has looked to the community to help destroy his four wheel drive.

Rather than on-sell what he said had been a vehicle riddled with faults, to an unsuspecting buyer, and potentially place them and their family at risk, Mr Wood has looked to crowd source the demolition of the car.

His Jeep has been covered in signatures of people supporting his efforts, and the ink-plastered Jeep has made its way around town, when it works, to encourage fellow motorists with issues to lodge complaints with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

“It’s going really well, we’ve got about $3300 left to raise to destroy the car,” Mr Wood said.

“Everything’s booked; we’ve got a van booked with four cameras to film it (destruction of the Jeep),” he said.

“We’ve got two, 34-tonne excavators booked to rip the engine out and there’s names written on arrows that will be shot into it beforehand.”

More news:

Police bust 10 common driving myths

Hytch to take stand at Rachel Antonio inquest

VIDEO: Arrested parents’ plea to have son treated

There is a serious undertone to Mr Wood’s campaign.

After lobbying, he said the ACCC had confirmed it would investigate Fiat Chrysler.

“The ACCC are now taking it seriously,” he said.

Mr Wood said he wanted to see a Lemon Law introduced, to ensure both safer roads and more protection for consumers.

He has two lobby groups on board, as well as at least one federal politician and a radio advertising campaign on Brisbane radio.

“At the end of the day, I refuse to sell my car to someone, it’s just too dangerous,” he said.

He said there should be no reason why car dealers were not held to account for their products in much the same way as whitegoods dealers.

Mr Wood’s Jeep will be destroyed on October 4.

For campaign details, visit Facebook and search Destroy My Jeep, or head to

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by: Scott Sawyer

Making Lemons Into Lemonade – New Jersey Law Journal


How New Jersey Lemon Law can sweeten a sour situation

Robert M. Silverman and Michael J. Sacks, New Jersey Law Journal

August 25, 2014



Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Choose Existing Folder

Your (Article, Chart, Blog) was successfully saved to your folder My Default Folder

Don’t forget you can visit My Briefcase to manage your folders at any time.

Consumers in New Jersey are protected by one of the strongest state lemon laws in the nation, ranking second in lemon law effectiveness.

groupSeenPastLimit (from DataUtilities getLastAccessFirmability method): false

ipSeenPastLimit (from DataUtilities method): false
isIPOnly: null

checkWebservice: false–>

Sign up for a free digital membership and get great benefits like:


To continue reading, sign up for a complimentary digital membership and get great benefits, like:


Already Registered? Sign In now

  • 5 free articles* every 30 days, from other ALM publications
  • Exclusive discounts on ALM events and products
  • New Jersey Law Journal digital newsletter, plus your choice of more than 30 digital newsletters
  • Access on the device of your choice: smartphone, tablet, or desktop
  • Unlimited free access to Corporate Counsel and Law Technology News online

*May exclude premium content

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

A closer look at the Philippine Lemon Law –

LEXUS Manila president Danny Isla

So it’s final. The dud that may lurk in your brand-new car (rare as it may be), has been given a lawful deadline of one year to show itself before you’re left to deal with it by your lonesome. That’s what the newly minted Lemon Law seems to suggest, as stated in Section 3 (h) of Republic Act No. 10642.

And, we quote the law: “Lemon Law rights period refers to the period ending twelve (12) months after the date of the original delivery of a brand new motor vehicle to a consumer or the first twenty thousand (20,000) kilometers of operation after such delivery, whichever comes first.”

There have been mixed reactions to the Lemon Law, specifically on that particular provision putting a time limit of one year. Some say the Filipino motoring public should be glad that, finally, there is a law supposedly to protect both buyers and sellers from motor vehicles with inherent defects beyond casa redemption. Others, however, harbor this reservation: What if the lemon car shows its true colors after one year?

AVID and HARI president Fe Agudo

This is just one of the many issues confronting the Philippine Lemon Law, now in its teething stage as its IRR (implementing rules and regulations) is being formulated.

The Philippine Lemon Law expressly states the given protection of 12 months or 20,000 km, whichever comes first. This means all factory defects that occur within a year from delivery of vehicle to the owner, or up to 20,000 km of mileage, would be covered by the law.

Tomorrow, Aug. 14, the first technical working group (composed of parties from the auto industry and consumers) responsible for the drafting of the IRR will meet.

“The IRR is meant to fill in the details of what is generally provided in the law and cannot go beyond what is already clearly stated such as the 12 months or 20,000 km. So, as far as the Lemon Law is concerned, the one year is already final and cannot be changed in the IRR,” stressed Chamber of Automotive Manufacturers of the Philippines Inc. (Campi) president  Rommel Gutierrez, who will be part of the working group.

CATS Motors chair Greg Yu

Gutierrez argued that the one-year period is justified. “It is within this period that defects or conditions which substantially impair the use, value or safety of a brand-new vehicle will clearly manifest.”

He pointed out that the written manufacturers’ warranty (of three to five years) that goes with the vehicle upon its purchase already gives substantial rights and protection to consumers. The Lemon Law, he points out, simply supplements this written warranty.

He added that “safeguards are in place under the Lemon Law, such as the four repair attempts which compel the dealers/distributors to do actual and continuous repairs, thereby ensuring that the rights of the customers are protected.”

Law is standard

Gutierrez also said that the Philippines’ own version of the Lemon Law adopts the internationally accepted provisions, including the one-year coverage.

ACEI marketing and sales chief Arnel Doria

But the one-year provision is not a hard-and-fast rule. Of the 51 US states listed in the Lemon Law summaries of, 30 of these have one-year coverage, 15 enforce a two-year coverage, three have a 18-month coverage, and one state has a 15-month coverage. Still, another state indicates a “warranty period plus one-year coverage,” and another state’s Lemon Law is effective throughout the whole warranty period of the vehicle. This is on top of the federal lemon law applicable to all states that may extend beyond the warranty coverage of the manufacturer.

Of the 30 states prescribing the one-year coverage, 18 of these indicated “warranty period or one year” with no mileage limit, while seven indicated 12,000 miles (19,200 km). Two indicated 15,000 miles (24,000 km) and one stated 18,000 miles (28,800 km).

Ferman Lao, Car Awards Group Inc. (Cagi) president, told Inquirer Motoring that it would be highly unlikely that a defect won’t manifest itself in the course of normal usage within the first year, or 20,000 km. But he also pointed out that he knew of cases of major factory defects in cars manifesting themselves on the second year or later.

CAMPI president Rommel Gutierrez

Lao is still relieved that the Lemon Law has been passed. “With the Lemon Law, consumers have a way of addressing defective cars.”

Leslie Sy, online expert, maintained that the given protection of 12 months “is inadequate, given how some problems may occur later.”

He added: “I feel the length of protection should be longer, maybe equal to the car’s factory warranty. Why so long? Given a car something so heavily taxed by the government, it would just be ‘fair’ to compensate the common man with some extra consumer protection for the second most expensive thing one would be buying, after real estate.”

He then asked, “Why settle for a half-baked law? If it is going to get passed now, it should have the full protection as it was intended in the first place. It does not makes sense if the Lemon Law only protects car buyers for one year when the manufacturer’s warranty is two to three years or longer. The protection of the law should be at least the same or even longer.”

Sy, however, does concede that the Lemon Law is better than nothing.

Defect vs wear-and-tear

Auto industry veteran Arnel Doria, head of marketing and sales of Automobile Central Enterprise Inc. (ACEI), agrees with the law’s provision of just one year. “Twelve months is enough time for factory abnormalities to surface under normal usage.”

He also explained, “Factory defects should be differentiated from problems arising from wear-and-tear and misuse (usually defined in the warranty manual).”

Inquirer Motoring asked Doria a hypothetical question: What if a car owner only used his or her brand-new car for only 1,000 km during the year? Would the infrequent of use be enough for any major defect covered by the law to surface?

TCCCI president Albert Arcilla

“If a car is driven only 1,000 km/year, that is abnormal, which can already cause problems to the vehicle: brakes getting stuck, lubricants getting acidic, tires getting misshapen, batteries being drained, and so on,” quipped Doria. These problems would not be covered under the terms of “normal use.”

Doria, however, urged the IRR working committee to clearly classify defects (which the law covers) as against the term of “wear-and-tear.”

Doria stressed that wear-and-tear are usually not covered by warranty, especially if they are accelerated and/or as a result of abnormal usage. Consumables such as tires, batteries, lubricants and fluids are usually covered by third-party warranty and not by the car distributors.

“I believe a lot of issues will be addressed by the formulation of the IRR,” said Doria.

All is fair for manufacturers

Danny Isla, Lexus Manila president, and  Albert Arcilla, TCCCI president, agree to the one-year period.

“Each manufacturer already offers certain warranties and guarantees attached to the car that are specifically identified in the warranty booklets and form part as direct and indirect obligations of the manufacturers and dealers to the clients. These warranties, together with the pre-existing laws on consumer protection, generally provide a recourse for our clients,” Arcilla said.

Arcilla added: “I feel the law is progressive and objective in the sense that it provides a platform for all parties to present the facts and issues to an independent body for a fair and objective resolution. Every manufacturer and dealer would want to ensure that we provide the quality and standards expected of our products.”

Fe Perez-Agudo, Association of Vehicle Importers and Distributors (Avid) chair and president of Hyundai Asia Resources Inc. (Hari), told Inquirer Motoring recently that the organization recognizes the importance of the Lemon Law in protecting the rights of consumers.

“Avid is optimistic that the law will provide the needed balance between consumer protection and the rights of automobile importers, dealers and manufacturers against baseless and capricious claims; and that it will be efficiently implemented to reinforce the rights and obligations of each party, consistent with the basic principles of due process,” said Agudo.

Greg T. Yu, CATS Motors chair, said that “a well-crafted law that is fair would prevent abuses and would ensure that prices would be kept reasonable. At the same time, the rights of consumers will also be protected.”

Auto insurers’ POV

The Philippine Insurers and Reinsurers Association (Pira) told Inquirer Motoring that it welcomes the passage of RA 10642.

It cited, among others, the extended warranties. In a statement, it said: “Manufacturers or car owners buy extended warranty covers from insurance companies as protection from breakdowns that may arise after the warranty of the vehicle had elapsed. With the Philippine Lemon Law in place, it may be wise for insurance companies to review their policies and for manufacturers and car owners to consider the importance of this risk management tool.”

Pira’s technical committee, which focuses specifically on motor car insurance, is now studying the other implications of the Philippine Lemon Law on the industry.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

DTI to craft IRR for Lemon Law – Philippine Star

MANILA, Philippines – The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is set to draw up implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for the recently passed Lemon Law.

“With the approval of the Lemon Law… the DTI is now tasked to formulate the necessary IRR within the 90-day period from the effectivity of the act through a Technical Working Group composed of representatives from government and private sectors,” the DTI said in a statement.

Republic Act No. 10642: An Act Strengthening Consumer Protection in the Purchase of Brand New Motor Vehicles, which is also known as the Philippine Lemon Law, was approved by President Aquino on July 15.

The law will take effect on Aug. 7.

The Lemon Law seeks to protect consumers in the event that a brand new, recently purchased vehicle does not meet the standards set by the manufacturers.

The law gives the DTI jurisdiction over disputes that may arise between car owners and the manufacturer or distributor or authorized retailer of the defective vehicle.

Business ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Under the law, consumers would be able to seek redress for defective vehicles from manufacturers, distributors or authorized retailers.

The law covers defects that occur within a year from delivery of the vehicle to the owner or up to 20,000 kilometers mileage, whichever comes first.

Defects that occur as a result of non-compliance by the consumer of obligations under the warranty or modifications not authorized by the manufacturer, distributor or retailer are not covered by the law.

Abuse or neglect of the vehicle and damage due to an accident are also not covered.

Manufacturers, distributors or authorized retailers are required to undertake repairs on the defective vehicle.

If the defects are not addressed after four attempts, the vehicle owner could get either a new car or a refund.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Tesla settles lemon law case with Wisconsin man for $126836 – Automotive News

Related Topics

Tesla Motors Inc. agreed to settle the first lemon law suit filed against the company, Wisconsin lawyer Vince Megna said.

According to Megna, who describes himself as the “Lemon Law King,” the company will pay $126,836 — the amount initially requested by Megna — to Robert Montgomery, a Tesla owner in Milwaukee who claimed his vehicle spent 66 days over five months in an auto repair shop in Chicago.

The lawsuit filed April 7 in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court alleged Tesla had ignored three requests to buy back the vehicle in November and December. Montgomery purchased the vehicle for $98,000 on March 21, 2013.

Montgomery filed a similar suit against Volvo in February 2013. The company agreed to settle that August.

Montgomery’s case was transferred from the Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Tesla spokeswoman Liz Jarvis-Shean said in an e-mail that the company now considers the case closed.

Megna said he received a number of inquiries into lemon law cases covering Tesla models after he initially filed the Montgomery suit. However, none of the inquiries panned out.

Megna and Tesla exchanged blows via the Internet the week Montgomery’s case was filed. The lawyer posted a YouTube video April 7 in which he talked about some of the car’s defects and drove to the courthouse to file the suit.

On the way, Megna picks up a cardboard cutout of George Clooney. The actor was one of the first Tesla Roadster customers but became a public critic of the company after experiencing technical issues with the vehicle.

The company responded to the suit in a blog published April 9 from the Tesla Motors Team titled, “When Life Gives You Lemons …”

The post attacked Megna’s lemon law claims, saying the company received only one claim letter from Montgomery in November and had been in close contact with him since. The company said it also worked to address the vehicle’s defects, though it was not able to find the origin of some of the complaints.

“Faced with no diagnosis showing anything wrong with the car, the engineers were moved to consider the possibility that the fuse had been tampered with,” Tesla said in the post, responding to repeated claims that the vehicle’s fuse blew.

In his latest video, Megna said Tesla “did the right thing” by “giving up the dogfight.”

The lawyer then celebrated winning “the Super Bowl of lemon laws” by heading to the Wisconsin Dells, known for its water parks, with the Clooney cutout in tow.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by: Kathleen Burke