8. CLEARING UP COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS

CLEARING UP A COMMON MISCONCEPTION: There is NO REQUIREMENT that a car buyer's problems fall in to one of the three categories above to be considered a "lemon". It is a common misconception that a vehicle problem's must fall in to one of these categories to be considered a "lemon". The difference is that the buyer bears the entire "burden of proof" of showing their car is a "lemon". EXAMPLE: If a consumer's car was out of service a total of 29 (not 30) days for all defects in the first 18 months/18,000 miles they can still prove that their vehicle is a "lemon". The difference is that the consumer must prove ALL FIVE (5) elements not just the first FOUR (4).

CURRENT CONDITION OF VEHICLE IRRELEVANT: When a consumer demands that a manufacturer replace/make refund for their vehicle under the Lemon Law manufacturers often respond that since the vehicle is "now fixed and running fine" there is no Lemon Law claim; or what we like to call the "it's now fixed, so you can't sue us" defense. That is NOT a legally valid defense. All that matters is how many times the vehicle had to be repaired; NOT that is fixed now.

A CONSUMER MAY STILL DRIVE THEIR "LEMON": Their is NO requirement that a consumer stop driving their "lemon" vehicle. There is an older legal principle that requires buyers seeking restitution/recession of a contract to return what they bought to the seller and then sue the seller. However California's Courts have ruled that consumers seeking relief under the Lemon Law may continue to drive their vehicles. Because, as California's Courts have recognized that many consumers can only afford to finance one automobile at a time.