Rules that entitle a buyer to a refund or replacement when a new vehicle has a defect the manufacturer cannot fix in a reasonable number of attempts.
Lemon laws address a specific problem: a vehicle that is under warranty, has a substantial defect, and keeps coming back to the dealer unfixed. Rather than leaving the buyer to prove damages in an ordinary breach-of-contract case, these statutes create a presumption - typically that after a set number of unsuccessful repair attempts for the same defect, or a set number of days out of service, the manufacturer must repurchase or replace the vehicle.
What counts as substantial, how many attempts are enough, how long the protection lasts and whether used or leased vehicles are covered are all set by each state, and they differ considerably. Many states also require the buyer to go through a manufacturer-sponsored arbitration programme before suing.
Underneath the state schemes sits a federal warranty statute that applies to consumer products generally, not just cars. It does not create the repair-attempt presumption, but it governs how written warranties must be disclosed, restricts disclaimers of implied warranties where a written warranty is given, and - the practically important part - allows a successful consumer to recover attorney fees, which is often what makes a modest claim worth bringing at all.
The practical trigger is a third or fourth visit for the same unresolved fault. Keeping every repair order, with the complaint recorded in the customer's own words and the dates the vehicle was out of service, is what these cases turn on - and because the federal statute shifts fees, a claim that looks too small to pursue frequently is not.
These directory pages each list at least one currently published law firm. The list is generated when this page loads, so a page whose listings have lapsed drops out rather than becoming a dead link.