An Overview of Florida's Lemon Law & Its Potential Impact on Ricky's Case - Research Paper

Issue

Whether Florida, the state where Ricky bought his car, has a lemon law that could be used in Ricky's case. Is Ricky potentially liable under the Lemon Law of Florida State for the injuries Mr. Ethel suffered when an accident involving Ricky 1974 Fordham Pintobean car and Mr. Ethel pickup truck?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Brief Answer

Yes, there is a Lemon Law applicable to the case of Ricky. He did purchase in the Florida state of a used 1974 Fordham Pinto bean to use the vehicle primarily for personal purposes the vehicle had nonconformities that the dealer had not been able to fix, substantially impairing the vehicle's safety. This fact would be sufficient to meet the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act except for Ricky having received a written warranty along with the used vehicle then the lemon law will likely cover the used car.

The law prohibits a civil liability action from being brought by a victim of an accident against a third party in a state or federal court for damages suffered; as a result, negligence of a third party motorist during traffic gridlock. Further, there is no basis under the law of the District of Georgia to hold a motorist liable under a negligence theory for injuries caused by the negligence of a third party.

Facts

Ricky, a full-time student taking Legal Studies, decided to enjoy Spring Break in Florida. Ricky flew to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for a week. While he was there, Ricky decided to buy a used car and drive back to Montana. He purchased a 1974 Fordham Pintobean because it painted neon green; that would make it easier for him to find his car in the Montana snow after he got home. Driving north a few hours later, Ricky ran into some traffic gridlock on the interstate near Valdosta, Georgia. Unfortunately, the driver (Lucy) of the car behind him did not stop in time to avoid a collision. As soon as Lucy's car struck Ricky's Pintobean, a fireball consumed both cars. Even though Ricky had already applied his brakes due to the slowed traffic, the force of the hit from Lucy's car caused Ricky's car to strike Ethel's pickup truck, which was in front. Lucy died as a result of the accident, while Ricky sustained severe burns and multiple broken bones. Ethel suffered whiplash and a nervous breakdown because of the accident. Several months later, a process server has served Ricky with all of the necessary paperwork from Ethel, who is suing him based on that dreadful accident.

Before the accident occurred, there was traffic gridlock on the interstate near Valdosta, Georgia, and Ricky was stuck in the same gridlock, and his car had to come to an immediate stop. Unfortunately for Ricky, Lucy, the driver of the car behind him, who hit his car, causing it to hit Ethel's pickup, did not stop in time to avoid a collision. Ricky had already applied his brakes due to the slowed traffic, the force of the hit from Lucy's car caused Ricky's car to strike Ethel's pickup truck.

Analysis

Florida Lemon Law. Florida Lemon Laws and the federal law provide for compensation to Florida consumers of automobiles and trucks which prove defective and other vehicles and products including motorcycles, RV's, boats, computers and other consumer appliances and products (the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act). To qualify under the Florida Lemon Law, or the federal Lemon Law, the plaintiff must generally have a product that suffered multiple repair attempts under the manufacturer's factory warranty (Cremeens, 2020).

The Federal law requires dealers to affix a Buyer's Guide sticker on the window of each used car. The sticker will inform you, whether the vehicle comes with a warranty. If the vehicle comes with a Warranty then what specific protection provided the dealer; whether the vehicle is sold "as is" (with no warranties); the Act requires the buyer to ask for the car inspected by an independent mechanic in the presence of the buyer. The law further requires the buyer to get all promises in writing and that some of the major and possible problems that may occur with any vehicle.

Florida Lemon Law 681.101 Legislative Intent

The Legislature of Florida recognizes that a motor vehicle is a major consumer purchase and that any defective motor vehicle undoubtedly creates a hardship for the consumer. The Legislature further recognizes that, a duly franchised motor vehicle dealer is an authorized service agent of the manufacturer. The Legislature intends that the manufacturer resolve a good faith motor vehicle warranty and any complaint by a consumer within a specified period of time. However, it is not the intent of Legislature that a consumer establishes the presumption of a reasonable number of trials as to each manufacturer that provides a warranty directly to the consumer. The Legislature further intent to provide the necessary statutory procedures whereby, a consumer may receive a replacement vehicle, or a full refund, for a vehicle which is deemed not be brought in accordance with the warranty provided for in this chapter. On the other hand, however, nothing in this chapter shall in any way limit or expand the rights or remedies which are available to a consumer under any other law (Cremeens, 2020).

Complaints against a particular dealer. The buyer should never rely solely on oral promises of a salesman because it will be difficult or impossible to enforce such oral conversations. The buyer is obliged to ask the salesman to put any agreement in writing. The law urges consumers who are considering to buying a specific vehicles to insist on having the vehicle thoroughly inspected by an independent mechanic before you buying the same. Refusal to allow an independent mechanic to inspect the vehicle should be a clear warning, and the buyer is advised to consider not transacting with such traders. Inquire if the vehicle has ever been in any form of accident (Ashley 2011).

The first issue to resolve in this case is whether or not there is a lemon law covering used cars in Florida. The question of the accident between Ricky and Ethel should be resolved first before the prosecution of the case can proceed. In short, the issue of the applicable law serves as a prejudicial question to the case of Ricky indicted against Ethel. As enunciated in Article 36 of the Civil Code: "Prejudicial questions, which must be decided before any civil prosecution may be instituted. The Lemon Law that the plaintiff failed to file for arbitration as required by Page 3 the Florida Lemon Law with regard that the car repaired at no cost to the plaintiff and now working (id. at 14-15). The assertion is that, as a result, Florida's Lemon Law should apply and since the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice and arbitration provisions. Chrysler Corp. v. Pitsirelos, 721 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1998)

Conclusion

Based on our review, we conclude on three matters about the Lemon Law merit discussion. The first matter; (1) Whether the consumer or the manufacturer bears the burden of proof at a trial de novo appeal proceeding; the second matter (2) whether the Arbitration Board's decision in place is entitled to a presumption of correctness at the trial de novo appeal proceeding. Finally, the third issue (3)whether the continuing damages provision unconstitutionally penalizes the manufacturer for appealing the Arbitration Board's decision.16 Chrysler Corp. v. Pitsirelos, 721 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1998).

We conclude that the law liquidates the value of the loss per day, rather than requiring the consumer to quantify by proof the value of loss. The remedies provided in the Lemon Law, save for bad faith on the part of the consumer or manufacturer are compensatory. If we interpret the continuing damages provision to punish manufacturers for appealing adverse decisions of the Arbitration Board in good faith, the rights and virtue of manufacturers to due process and access to courts would be violated. Consequently, to be constitutional, the consumer, must present evidence of loss for use of the vehicle at the trial de novo appeal for purposes of supporting an award of continuing damages. If the loss of use is proven.

Ricky may not be sued in state or federal court for Mr. Ethel's injuries caused the negligence of late Lucy, a driver whose car hits and caused Ricky's car to strike Ethel's pickup truck, which was in front. If such suit were allowed, however, no tort liability theory exists in the District of Florida for holding a motorist liable for accident and harm caused by the negligence of a third party like Lucy.

References

Cremeens, P., J. (2020) Florida Lemon Law. Cremeens Law Group. Retrieved from: http://www.floridalemonauto.com/tampa-florida-lemon-law-attorney-on-lemon-laws.php

Moody, A. (2011). Lemon Law. State of Florida. Retrieved from: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/lemonlaw

The University of New York School of law (2020). Advanced Sample Memo Final Draft. Retrieved from: https://www.law.cuny.edu/legal-writing/students/memorandum/memorandum-4b/

Zweibel, E, B., Virginia McRae, V. (n.d.). Legal Memos Made Easy. Point First Writing. University of Ottawa. Retrieved from: http://pointfirstwriting.com/legal_memo/write_memo/facts.html

Cerdini v. Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 30652(U) (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 3/22/2010), 2010 NY Slip Op 30652 (N.Y. Sup.Ct., 2010)