Tag Archives: Lemon Law Buybacks

3 Costly Mistakes That Can Ruin Your California Lemon Law Claim

Posted on by

Buying a new or certified pre-owned vehicle should come with confidence, not constant trips to the repair shop. When a vehicle suffers from repeated, unfixable defects—commonly known as a “lemon”, California offers some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Under California law, if a manufacturer cannot repair your vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, they are required to buy it back or replace it, as well as cover your legal fees. However, winning a claim is not automatic. Drivers often make critical errors early on that give auto manufacturers grounds to deny liability. If you suspect your vehicle is a lemon, here are three mistakes that can derail your California Lemon Law claim and how to avoid them.

1. Not Insisting on Detailed Repair Invoices from an Authorized Dealer

California Lemon Law relies heavily on written evidence. To qualify, you must show that an authorized dealership was given a reasonable opportunity to fix the same safety, value, or use defect while under the manufacturer’s warranty.

The Mistake:

Relying on verbal agreements with service advisors, leaving without a final repair order, or taking the car to an independent local mechanic rather than an authorized franchise dealership.

Why It Harms Your Claim:

  • Inaccurate Records: If a service advisor writes “could not duplicate concern” and you leave without reviewing the ticket, the manufacturer will argue that the defect didn’t occur.
  • Unauthorized Mechanics: Repairs done by independent shops or DIY modifications can void portions of your warranty, allowing manufacturers to blame a third party for the vehicle’s issues.

What to Do Instead:

  • Always take your vehicle to an authorized manufacturer dealership for warranty repairs.
  • Describe symptoms clearly (e.g., “transmission stutters when accelerating from a stop”) and make sure the advisor writes down your exact words on the intake sheet.
  • Never leave the dealership without a signed, physical copy of the final repair invoice detailing the exact dates, mileage in/out, and work performed.

2. Waiting Too Long to Act or Exceeding the Statutory Presumption Window

California law includes a powerful legal tool called the Lemon Law Presumption (CIV § 1793.22). This presumption automatically deems a vehicle a lemon if specific criteria are met within the first 18 months or 18,000 miles of delivery:

  1. The dealer attempted to fix a defect that could cause death or serious bodily injury 2 or more times.
  2. The dealer attempted to fix the same general defect 4 or more times.
  3. The vehicle has been out of service for repairs for a cumulative total of more than 30 days.

The Mistake:

Delaying repairs because the problem seems minor, hoping it will resolve on its own, or waiting until the factory warranty is about to expire before seeking help.

Why It Harms Your Claim:

While you can still file a claim outside the 18-month/18,000-mile window (as long as the issues began under warranty), missing this window shifts the burden of proof back onto you. Furthermore, waiting allows manufacturers to argue that the issue is due to normal wear and tear rather than a factory defect.

What to Do Instead:

Report defects to the dealership immediately upon noticing them. Keep a log of every repair visit and track how many total days your car sits in the service bay.

3. Attempting to Fight the Manufacturer Alone or Accepting a Lowball Cash Offer

Automakers employ experienced legal teams whose primary goal is to minimize payouts or deny lemon law claims outright.

The Mistake:

Contacting the manufacturer directly to demand a buyback without legal representation, or accepting a quick “cash-and-keep” settlement offer directly from the car maker.

Why It Harms Your Claim:

Direct complaints to customer service hotlines often result in long delays, stalled negotiations, or low cash settlements that require you to sign away your legal rights and could leave you stuck with a defective car.

What to Do Instead:

Partner with an experienced California Lemon Law attorney. Under California law, the manufacturer is legally required to pay your legal fees and costs if your claim is successful. This means you do not have to pay out-of-pocket for quality legal representation.

Get a Free California Lemon Law Case Review

If your vehicle has spent weeks in the shop or has undergone multiple unsuccessful repairs, you don’t have to navigate the process alone.

At Edzant Price LLP, we have spent decades protecting California consumers and recovering millions from auto manufacturers. Contact our team today at 1-888-395-3666 or submit your vehicle details online for a free case review.

Lemon Law Coverage On Used Vehicles

Posted on by

Purchasing a used vehicle is a decision many consumers make for perfectly valid reasons. Used cars, trucks, RVs, motorcycles, and other recreational vehicles often come with a significantly lower price tag than new models, making them an attractive option for budget-conscious buyers. When a used vehicle still has some factory warranty remaining, the deal can appear even more appealing.

However, one critical factor is often overlooked during the buying process: lemon law protection. In many cases, used vehicles are not covered by the lemon law at all, leaving buyers exposed if serious defects arise after purchase.

Why Lemon Law Coverage Matters

California’s lemon law was designed to protect consumers from vehicles that have substantial defects and cannot be properly repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. While this protection is strong for new vehicles, it is far more limited when it comes to used ones.

In some situations, purchasing a used vehicle means the buyer assumes the risk of mechanical problems—even if the vehicle still carries a partial manufacturer warranty. This can come as a surprise to consumers who reasonably expect that any remaining warranty automatically provides full legal protection. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.

The Important Exception: Certified Pre-Owned Vehicles

One category of used vehicles does stand apart: true Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) vehicles. These vehicles are sold exclusively by new car dealerships that represent the same manufacturer as the vehicle being sold. A manufacturer-backed CPO vehicle has undergone a standardized inspection process and includes a factory-supported warranty.

It is important to note that not every vehicle advertised as “certified” qualifies as a true CPO. Independent dealerships frequently use the term “certified” to describe their own inspection programs, but these designations do not carry legal weight under the lemon law. Only manufacturer-backed CPO vehicles receive this special consideration.

Because of the added protections and warranties, CPO vehicles are typically priced higher than other used vehicles. While the upfront cost may be greater, the added security can prove invaluable if serious defects arise later.

Courtesy and Demonstrator Vehicles: Another Protected Category

Another lesser-known exception involves courtesy vehicles and demonstrator vehicles. These are vehicles that were previously used by dealerships as loaners for customers or driven by dealership staff. Although they may have mileage on them, title was never transferred to a consumer.

From a legal standpoint, these vehicles are often treated as new under the lemon law, meaning buyers may still be entitled to full lemon law protections. This makes courtesy and demonstrator vehicles an attractive option for consumers seeking the benefits of lemon law coverage without purchasing a brand-new vehicle.

Balancing Savings and Risk

Buying used can absolutely make financial sense—but it is not without trade-offs. The lower purchase price often comes with reduced legal protection, and consumers must decide how much risk they are willing to assume.

Choosing a true Certified Pre-Owned vehicle or a dealership courtesy or demonstrator vehicle may cost more upfront, but these options offer a level of protection similar to purchasing new. In many ways, the additional cost functions like insurance: an investment in peace of mind should the vehicle turn out to have serious defects.

Making an Informed Decision

The key to a smart purchase is understanding what protections come with the vehicle before signing the paperwork. Consumers should ask detailed questions, verify whether a vehicle is truly manufacturer-certified, and confirm the warranty terms in writing.

An informed buyer is far less likely to face unpleasant surprises down the road. When it comes to used vehicles, knowing where lemon law protection applies—and where it does not—can make all the difference.

2018 Cadillac Escalade – GM Lemon Law Buyback

Posted on by

Our client was happy to buy a 2018 Cadillac Escalade.

On March 21, 2018 he took it in to the authorized Cadillac dealership because the service stabilitrak warning light would intermittently come on. The car was at the dealership for 16 days.

On December 6 he brought the Escalade back into the dealership because the service stabilitrak light was flashing and then stayed on. The service airbag light was on, too. The vehicle was in the shop for 11 days this time.

The last visit was on March 21, 2019. Our client brought the vehicle back to the dealership because the airbag light was on. The service stabilitrak message was on again. The vehicle was in the shop for 6 days this visit.

Our client called a few months later as someone had told him about the California Lemon Law. He spoke with attorney Barry L. Edzant and emailed some documents for Barry to review. He signed a retainer agreement shortly thereafter and a demand letter was sent to General Motors Corporation.

GMC decided to buy back the vehicle under the CA Lemon Law. They reimbursed our client for his down payment, all monthly payments made so far, his registration, paid off the balance of the loan minus a usage fee the manufacturer is entitled to under the law and paid the attorney fees.

If you are concerned that your vehicle may be a lemon, please call our office at 888-395-3666. We handle cases throughout the state of California.

2012 Chevrolet Cruze Buyback For Safety Defects

Posted on by

The Law Offices of Delsack & Associates recently received a call from a 2012 Chevrolet Cruze owner who was experiencing problems that affected the safety of his vehicle. He had complained many times to his GMC dealership and had five (5) unsuccessful repair attempts affecting multiple systems in his vehicle. Continue reading →

2010 Chevrolet Malibu Repurchased Under California Lemon Law

Posted on by

After analyzing repair orders and the purchase contract of a potential lemon law case, we determined that the owner of a 2010 Chevrolet Malibu did have a valid claim to have his vehicle repurchased under the California Lemon Law. He had complained to the dealer many times about his cars problems and had six (6) unsuccessful repair attempts for various defects. These problems included:

  • Defective Engine Cooling System
  • Defective A/C System
  • Defective Thermostat
  • Defective Temperature Gauge
  • Defective Control Valve Assembly
  • SES Light Remains On

Continue reading →

2012 Dodge Challenger Lemon Law Buyback

Posted on by

The Law Offices of Delsack & Associates, P.C. were contacted by the owner of a 2012 Dodge Challenger who believed his vehicle could be a lemon. He bought his car in February, 2013 and started having problems almost immediately. These included defects with the braking system, an air bag light and check engine light that remains on, and a defective fuel sender.

After taking his Challenger to a Chrysler dealer for repairs on eight (8) separate occasions, with defects still remaining, he decided to contact us for advice. Following a short consultation with a lemon law attorney, he decided to retain the Law Offices of Delsack & Assoc., P.C. to represent him in his demand to have Chrysler repurchase the vehicle. Continue reading →

2013 Toyota Prius Lemon Law Buyback For Multiple Defects

Posted on by

The Law Offices of Delsack & Associates, P.C. were recently contacted by a 2013 Toyota Prius owner who was experiencing repeated problems with her vehicle. The EV had been in for repairs on three (3) separate occasions, was out of service in the hands of the manufacturer for more that 62 days, and the problems were still not fixed. She had complained to the Toyota dealer on many occasions about issues which included defective:

  • Vehicle Paint
  • Windshield (etched Spots/Distortion)
  • Back Glass
  • Right Rear Quarter Glass
  • Driver’s Side Window
  • Right Rear Window
  • Spoiler

Continue reading →

2009 Chevrolet HHR Repeated Repair Attempts

Posted on by

The owner of a 2009 Chevrolet HHR contacted the Law Offices of Delsack & Associates, P.C. after experiencing repeated problems with her vehicle. She purchased the wagon new in September 2010 and drove it for only a month when it started loosing power under normal operating conditions. Persistent problems resulted in the vehicle being returned to a GMC dealer, seven (7) more times for issues that include:

  • Continued Loss Of Power
  • Defective Steering Assist
  • Defective Suspension
  • Defective Electric Brake Control Module
  • Electronic Stabilizer Control Light Remains On
  • Defective Throttle Body Assembly

Continue reading →