$________ Lemon Law - Violation of Lemon Law, Lemon Aid Law, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty and merchantability - Plaintiff purchases a vehicle from the defendant dealership and later discovers that it has serious mechanical defects and does not meet inspection standards.

Worcester

In this Lemon Law case, the plaintiff purchased a ________ Volvo XC70 from the defendant. The plaintiff contended that the defendant violated the Lemon Law, the Lemon Aid Law, breached the express warranty, and breached the implied warranty and merchantability. The plaintiff argued that he lawfully revoked acceptance of the vehicle and that the defendant owed him return of his payment for the vehicle.

According to the Lemon Aid Law, if a vehicle fails to pass inspection after purchase, the buyer must notify the dealer within two weeks and is then the purchaser can return the vehicle for refund. In the subject case, the plaintiff bought a vehicle from the defendant, took it for inspection and it passed. Soon afterward the plaintiff noticed problems with the suspension and took the vehicle to an auto mechanic who told the plaintiff that the vehicle had major suspension system failure and that it should never have passed inspection. The plaintiff informed the Department of Motor Vehicles who re-inspected the vehicle and revoked the earlier inspection.

The plaintiff sent letters to the defendant dealer notifying the defendant of the vehicle’s failure to pass inspection. The defendant dealer refused to take the vehicle back. The plaintiff returned the vehicle to the dealership and it remained there throughout the ensuing action. The parties entered into settlement negotiations which ultimately failed and the matter went to litigation. The defendant made an offer, but it was not enough to resolve the case.

At trial, the plaintiff presented an independent expert from the automotive mechanic shop. The plaintiff’s expert testified that the vehicle should never have passed the initial inspection. The plaintiff’s expert stated that he alerted the plaintiff to the suspension problems and told the plaintiff to return the vehicle to the defendant dealership.

The defendant contended that the vehicle appropriately passed inspection the first time. The defendant argued that it did what it was required to do and did not owe the plaintiff anything for the vehicle.

The jury found that the defendant violated Lemon Aid Law, Lemon Law, the breach of express warranty, and the breach of implied warranty and merchantability. The jury further found that the plaintiff lawfully revoked acceptance of the vehicle and awarded the full purchase price of the vehicle plus sales tax, out of pocket expenses and interest for a ________% recovery of the plaintiff’s loss of $________.