Warranty issues on car transmission replacement I had the transmission in my car replaced by my garage 3 years ago with a 3 year warranty of the transmission seller. In February of this year the engine light turned on and I took the car back to the garage. They contacted the seller, who advised him to turn off the engine light to see if the problem re-occurred. The engine light came back on a few months later. The seller now advised to replace the shift solenoids, which my garage did. Now my transmission is failing and the warranty expired in September. The seller is willing to provide a new transmission, but is refusing to take care of the costs of replacing it, saying the warranty has expired. However, they we told my garage to keep trying things until the warranty ran out. Can they argue the warranty expired, even though the problems started well inside the warranty period? I'm located in WA, USA.
Much of the remedies for your situation depend on what you have in writing about 1) the transmission agreement and warranty you signed and what it may contain about warranty replacements, arbitration and court actions, and 2) what written evidence you have to the fact that the garage was encouraged to "keep trying things" until the warranty ran out, as well as evidence of the dates of the CEL (check engine light) maintenances and the shift solenoid replacements. Do you have - or can you get - a statement in writing from the garage that they were told to keep trying things until the warranty ran out? Your case to get the company to pay for the installation of the new transmission may hinge on this, as you need to prove that the transmission was possibly failing before the end of the three years. Does the transmission sale and installation agreement contain a clause about binding arbitration or court actions if you have a warranty complaint? These will determine what you can and can't do if you exhaust all other remedies and want to go to court. But it sounds like the transmission company is at least trying to make the situation whole by offering a replacement transmission. You need to gently push them to pay for the installation. Your basic options are: 1) you can try to talk to the transmission company yourself (along with the ammunition of possible evidence of the garage being told to delay warranty replacement) and try to work out a settlement for them to pay the installation costs; failing that, 2) file a complaint with a consumer advocate (like Consumer Protection | Washington State); or failing those, 3) take the transmission company to small claims court (if your agreement does not bind you to arbitration). Re: the first option above: something that can work very well is if the transmission company is a regional or national chain, look up the president or CEO and send them an email outlining your complaint. Many times a corporation will try to settle these types of situations before a complaint is filed or they go to arbitration or small claims court, because good PR (paying for the labor/installation) is cheap and bad PR is expensive. They already offered a replacement transmission, which is good; you need to gently push them to pay for the installation.
Misrepresentation At common law, if you are induced to enter a contract by a material misrepresentation then you can rescind the contract and/or sue for damages. The person concerned would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that: the misrepresentation was actually made, which, if it was only verbal and there were no independent witnesses will be problematic, the misrepresentation caused them to enter the contract. If the dealer were to deny everything, and it came down to a &quot;he said, she said&quot;, then, on the evidence, the person should lose. The facts are equally consistent with the buyer making an unprompted mistake as to the model of the car. Unfortunately, while most cases are compelling when you only have one side's story; when both sides get to have their say the facts become less easy to determine. Outside of misrepresentation, the person can complain to whatever government consumer protection agencies there are in Florida.
The Supply of Goods and Services Act doesn't apply here. Section 1(1) says that the only contracts concerning goods covered by the Act are those 'under which one person transfers or agrees to transfer to another the property in goods'. A lease doesn't transfer the cooker to you: it gives you exclusive possession of a dwelling containing the cooker. The cooker remains the property of the landlord. Assuming that your lease is for fewer than seven years, the statutory provision for a landlord's repair obligations is set out in s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Unfortunately this does not help you: although the landlord is responsible for maintaining the gas and electricity supply equipment, the Act specifically excludes 'appliances for making use of the supply of ... gas or electricity'. The text of your lease may have specific provisions for the repair and upkeep of the cooker, so you should read it carefully and seek advice if you are unsure. Most landlords will leave copies of the instruction manuals for installed appliances. You should ask for a copy of the manual if one was not provided and can't be found in the flat. In practical terms, you should report the fault in writing to the landlord (or managing agent if you have one), saying that you are unable to use the cooker and that it is a potential danger given that you don't understand how it works. At the very least, you should ensure that the condition of the cooker is reflected correctly on your inventory.
No, it does not. There is indeed a 2-year guarantee for all goods, but "goods" is defined to be a "tangible movable item" according to Directive 1999/44/EC Article 1, subsection 2(b). In less legalese, a physical item; software doesn't count. While there has been discussion about extending this protection to software, I'm not aware of this having been done yet. Even if it were, determining whether goods are "faulty" ultimately comes down to whether it conforms to the contract of sale (Article 2). I think it's likely that vendors in this area would put a disclaimer for unforeseen security vulnerabilities, or something to that effect.
Knowingly selling a car with an incorrect odometer reading is a crime unless this is disclosed properly. It also gives rise to a right of private action, that is the buyer can sue. The California Vehicle Code, Article 10. Odometers includes the following provisions which might be relevant to this issue: Sec 28050 It is unlawful for any person to advertise for sale, to sell, to use, or to install on any part of a motor vehicle or on an odometer in a motor vehicle any device which causes the odometer to register any mileage other than the true mileage driven. Sec 28050.5. It is unlawful for any person with the intent to defraud to operate a motor vehicle on any street or highway knowing that the odometer of such vehicle is disconnected or nonfunctional. Sec 28051 It is unlawful for any person to disconnect, turn back, advance, or reset the odometer of any motor vehicle with the intent to alter the number of miles indicated on the odometer gauge. The US National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA), part of the federal DoT, has a page on &quot;Odometer Fraud&quot;. It mentions that such fraud is a crime under federal law, as well as under state law. It advises reproving such fraud to the NHTSA in cases of bulk fraud, and reporting individual cases to a state agency. it gives links for both purposes. The US DoJ has a page on &quot;THE FEDERAL ODOMETER TAMPERING STATUTES&quot; It lists 49 U.S.C. § 32703(2).(Tampering); 49 U.S.C. § 32705(a)(2). (false statement); U.S.C. § 32703(4) (conspiracy) and 49 U.S.C. § 32709(b) (criminal penalties). 49 U.S. Code § 32705 provides that: (a) (1) Disclosure Requirements.—Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation that include the way in which information is disclosed and retained under this section, a person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle shall give the transferee the following written disclosure: (a)(1)(A) Disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. (a)(1)(B) Disclosure that the actual mileage is unknown, if the transferor knows that the odometer reading is different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled. (a)(2) A person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle may not violate a regulation prescribed under this section or give a false statement to the transferee in making the disclosure required by such a regulation. (a)(3) A person acquiring a motor vehicle for resale may not accept a written disclosure under this section unless it is complete. Ther is a page &quot;How To Fight Odometer Fraud&quot; from Jalopnik which mentions tht there is a private right of action, so that one can sue to enforce the above federal law, and also under various state laws. (This page also discusses how to detect and confirm tampering in some cases.) A page &quot;California Lemon Law Lawyer Discusses Odometer Fraud&quot; discusses how suits may be brought in such cases. This page, is of course, intended ti induce people to hire this law firm for such suits. It seems that such suits can include the award of attorney's fees and other costs. This makes it more attractive to consult a lawyer before proceeding with such suits. Many lawyers will offer initial consultations at little or no cost, so it may well be worth such a consultation.
Once I figured out the term I was looking for was &quot;cooling off period&quot; a google search led to this SFGate article which seems to say, no, there is no cooling off period in California. breaking a lease, even before moving into a new home, can be a legal challenge. If you must cancel a lease before moving in, be prepared for a financial loss and possible legal difficulties. And this article There is no &quot;cooling off&quot; period for residential releases. In some states, a cooling off period is required for certain contracts, which give signers a window of time, typically one to three days, during which they can void the contract if they change their mind. Unless such a condition is explicitly stated in the lease or there is a rare jurisdictional law that requires a cooling period, your lease is binding the second you sign your name. So, the answer to my question is &quot;No, there is no grace period&quot; and that my current apartment, with the 3 day exception was just a kind offer on their part. I'd just guess because they're a large firm (they run ~80k apartments) they've learned it's better to let people go if they change their mind in 3 days than go through the trouble of forcing them to honor the lease. Interestingly, and related IMO, there is also no cooling off period for car purchases. I thought there was which is why I thought there might also be one for apartments since, at least in California, many apartments yearly rent is more than the entire cost of a car. (avg in SF is $40k a year) But, at least in California, if it's a used car and if the car costs less than $40k, the dealer is required to offer you the option to purchase a 2-day cancellation clause for around 1% of the car's price.
Such &quot;warranties&quot; are generally subject to separate laws, and they are not treated as a subcase of &quot;car insurance&quot;. Whereas homeowners insurance, vehicle liability insurance and so on are regulated in all states, extended warranties are regulated in over half of the states. There is a model law which tends to inspire state legislators in writing their own laws, and here is an instantiation in Washington state. At the outset, the law says that certain things are not covered, including warranties, maintenance agreements and service contracts (what then is covered??). There may be &quot;required content&quot;, for example Service contracts shall state the procedure to obtain service or to file a claim, including but not limited to the procedures for obtaining prior approval for repair work, the toll-free telephone number if prior approval is necessary for service, and the procedure for obtaining emergency repairs performed outside of normal business hours or provide for twenty-four-hour telephone assistance. There are sections specific to motor vehicles, which could be relevant, for example &quot;A service contract provider shall not deny a claim for coverage based upon the service contract holder's failure to properly maintain the vehicle, unless the failure to maintain the vehicle involved the failed part or parts&quot;. At the bottom of the Model Act document is a list of statuses in the various states: it's status in Connecticut is nonexistence, as of July 2014 (and no signs of such a law having been subsequently passed). There is a general law about express warranties, which doesn't impose any content restrictions on such contracts. So in CT, it depends on what the contract says.
No, selling a car "as-is" is not a valid reason for not having a smog certificate. According to the DMV here, the smog certificate must have been done within 90 days of the sale. The exceptions are: The transfer occurs between a spouse, domestic partner, sibling, child, parent, grandparent, or grandchild. A biennial smog certification was submitted to DMV within 90 days prior to the vehicle transfer date (a vehicle inspection report may be required for proof of certification). There are a few other exceptions based on the type/year of the car like gasoline-powered and older than 1975 or electric-powered.