Ohio Lemon Law

Defenses the Vehicle Manufacturer May Use Against You

The Ohio Supreme Court has written that despite its pucker-inducing remedy, the Lemon Law does have protections for manufacturers. The law does not create remedies for buyers who have soured on their new vehicle for cosmetic or other trivial reasons.

A. Abuse, Neglect or Unauthorized Modification

A consumer cannot recover under the Lemon Law if the nonconformity is "the result of abuse, neglect, or the unauthorized modification or alteration of a motor vehicle by anyone other than the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer." This is only fair. If you have put new mufflers on your car in the quest for greater horsepower, you cannot be heard to complain under the Lemon Law that there is a problem with these new mufflers.

B. Defect Not a Nonconformity

The vehicle's problem must substantially impair the use, safety, or value of the motor vehicle. This requirement of substantiality is important. This gets back to the discussions above about minor, trivial complaints from picky consumers or persons looking to get out of a deal. When the manufacturer defends the case against you, their lawyer is going to try to paint you as a hypersensitive crybaby to the court. Be ready for it.

C. Other Settlement Agreements

If you enter into a settlement agreement with the vehicle manufacturer for less than your full rights and remedies, then this will be a defense to a lawsuit filed later under Ohio's Lemon Law. In a case before Ohio's Twelfth Appellate District Court, the consumer had struck a deal with Ford to replace his 1993 truck with a 1996 truck because of problems he was having with it. The consumer and Ford also agreed that since the consumer was getting a 1996 truck, the consumer would pay the extra increase in price on that model since 1993. The consumer accepted this deal, but wrote "under protest" next to his signature on the settlement agreement. A release is a contract, subject to the requirements for a valid contract. A valid contract requires a bargain in which there is a manifestation that the parties assent to the exchange and a consideration. There are three elements to a contract in the state of Ohio. These are, offer, acceptance and consideration. Offer and acceptance are normally shown by an offer from one party followed by an acceptance by the other party. Consideration is a bargained for exchange of a promise for a return promise or a promise for a performance. Consideration is "bargained for" if it is sought by the person making the promise in exchange for it and is given by the person receiving the promise in exchange for that promise. Generally, consideration consists of either a benefit to the person making the promise or a detriment to the person receiving it. A benefit may consist of some right, interest or profit accruing the promissor, while a detriment to the person receiving the promise may be some forbearance, loss, or the creation, destruction or modification of a legal relation. The benefit or detriment does not need to be great; it need only be something regarded by the person making the promise as beneficial enough to induce his promise.

1. Example of Consideration

So consideration is the receipt by each party of a benefit in exchange for incurring a detriment. Let's look at an example to clear things up. Let's say you take out a Certificate of Deposit at a bank for one year with a value of Five Thousand Dollars. At the end of the year, the certificate has matured, and you go to the bank and ask for your money plus your interest. The bank says that it will not give you the full $5,000.00 plus the interest they previously promised, but that if you want it, they will give you $4,000.00. If you take this deal, you can later argue that there was no consideration for it. The bank owed you the whole $5,000.00 plus interest. In signing a release, the bank is not taking on a detriment and you are not receiving a benefit in exchange for the detriment that you gave up and the benefit the bank received. But the situation would have an entirely different result if we changed just one small fact. Let's say that you go into the bank before the year is up, and you ask for your money back early. The bank offers you $4,000.00 and you take it. That is a fully enforceable settlement contract. The bank was under no obligation to pay you back your money early. Therefore, in paying you back your money early, they incurred a detriment (albeit a small one) and you received a benefit. In getting less of your money back than you wanted, you incurred a detriment, and got a benefit, the early return of the money. The consumer in the case above, after taking the new truck and paying the difference, two years later sued under the Lemon Law, arguing that the settlement agreement was without consideration (one of the three central elements of any contract) because Ford would have had to have given him a new truck had he sued under Ohio's Lemon Law anyway. He was in essence arguing that Ford was not giving up a detriment and he was not gaining any benefit since Ford had to give him a new truck anyway, and he deserved one under Ohio's Lemon Law. But the court found all of this reasoning to be "dizzying circularity" and ruled that since the consumer never brought a claim under the Lemon Law at the time of the settlement, Ford was not obligated to replace the truck, nor did the consumer deserve one. Thus the replacement truck given over before suit was filed did constitute consideration, just like the money from the certificate of deposit given over before its time of maturity in the example above.

a. Grumbling Acceptance

Just as a side note, the Court also ruled against the consumer on his argument that his words "under protest" invalidated his signature on the settlement contract. The Court ruled that:

In this case, when appellant signed the replacement agreement and the release, paid the MSRP difference of $ 2,200 with cash, and took possession of the new truck, he unequivocally accepted Ford's offer in accordance with Ford's directions. Appellant's "protest" did not alter the terms of Ford's offer such that his purported acceptance became a counteroffer. Appellant's signature "under protest" amounted to nothing more than a "grumbling acceptance." Apparently, appellant accepted the offer in every respect, but with his fingers crossed behind his back. To paraphrase the Massachusetts Court of Appeal, it lies ill in appellant's mouth, after obtaining the brand new vehicle he and his attorney bargained for, to disavow the release.

Having trouble finding what you are looking for, then search our site below:

	www.ohiolandlordtenant.com