Nevada Lemon Law

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.600

Definitions.

As used in NRS 597.600 to 597.680, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.610

Report of defect in motor vehicle; duty of manufacturer.

If a new motor vehicle does not conform to all of the manufacturer’s applicable express warranties and the buyer reports the nonconformity in writing to the manufacturer:

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.620

Submission of claim to manufacturer for replacement or refund according to designated procedure.

If the manufacturer has established or designated a procedure for settling disputes informally which substantially complies with the provisions of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 703, a buyer must first submit his claim for replacement of the motor vehicle or for refund of the purchase price under that procedure before bringing any action under NRS 597.630.
(Added to NRS by 1983, 612)Ñ(Substituted in revision for NRS 598.761)

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.630

Duties of manufacturer if motor vehicle cannot be conformed to express warranties.

1. If, after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer, or its agent or authorized dealer is unable to conform the motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty by repair or correction and the defect or condition causing the nonconformity substantially impairs the use and value of the motor vehicle to the buyer and is not the result of abuse, neglect or unauthorized modifications or alterations of the motor vehicle, the manufacturer shall:
   1. Replace the motor vehicle with a comparable motor vehicle of the same model and having the same features as the replaced vehicle, or if such a vehicle cannot be delivered to the buyer within a reasonable time, then a comparable motor vehicle substantially similar to the replaced vehicle; or
   2. Accept return of the motor vehicle from the buyer and refund to him the full purchase price including all sales taxes, license fees, registration fees and other similar governmental charges, less a reasonable allowance for his use of the vehicle. A reasonable allowance for use is that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer before his first report of the nonconformity to the manufacturer, agent or dealer and during any subsequent period when the vehicle is not out of service for repairs. Refunds must be made to the buyer, and lienholder if any, as their interests may appear.
2. It is presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties where:
   1. The same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer, or its agent or authorized dealer within the time the express warranty is in effect or within 1 year following the date the motor vehicle is delivered to the original buyer, whichever occurs earlier, but the nonconformity continues to exist; or
   2. The motor vehicle is out of service for repairs for a cumulative total of 30 or more calendar days within the time the express warranty is in effect or within 1 year following the date the motor vehicle is delivered to the original buyer, whichever occurs earlier, except that if the necessary repairs cannot be made for reasons which are beyond the control of the manufacturer or its agent or authorized dealer, the number of days required to give rise to the presumption must be appropriately extended.

   (Added to NRS by 1983, 611)Ñ(Substituted in revision for NRS 598.766)

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.640

Tolling of period for express warranties.

For the purposes of NRS 597.600 to 597.670, inclusive, the running of the time an express warranty is in effect or of any other period of time described in those sections is tolled for the time during which services to repair the motor vehicle are not reasonably available to the buyer because of a war, invasion or strike, or because of a fire, flood or other natural disaster.
(Added to NRS by 1983, 611)Ñ(Substituted in revision for NRS 598.771)

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.650

Commencement of action by buyer.

Any action brought pursuant to NRS 597.600 to 597.630, inclusive, must be commenced within 18 months after the date of the original delivery of the motor vehicle to the buyer.
(Added to NRS by 1983, 612)Ñ(Substituted in revision for NRS 598.776)

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.660

Waiver of rights by buyer prohibited.

Any provision in any agreement between the manufacturer or its agent or authorized dealer and the buyer which provides that the buyer agrees to waive or forego any rights or remedies afforded by NRS 597.600 to 597.630, inclusive, is void.
(Added to NRS by 1983, 612)Ñ(Substituted in revision for NRS 598.781)

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.670

Effect of other rights and remedies of buyer.

The provisions of NRS 597.600 to 597.630, inclusive, do not limit any other right or remedy which the buyer may have by law or by agreement.
(Added to NRS by 1983, 612)Ñ(Substituted in revision for NRS 598.786)

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.675

Notification of manufacturer regarding change in residential address.

Any person entitled by the terms of a manufacturer’s express warranty to enforce its obligations is responsible for notifying the manufacturer of any change in his residential address.
(Added to NRS by 1995, 2366)

Nevada Lemon law NRS 597.680

Reimbursement by manufacturer for cost of repairs to conform vehicle to express warranties.

The manufacturer shall reimburse its agent or authorized dealer for the cost of repairs made to a motor vehicle to conform it to the manufacturer’s express warranties. The reimbursement must be paid at the rate usually billed by the agent or dealer to the general public for similar repairs.
(Added to NRS by 1985, 2026)Ñ(Substituted in revision for NRS 598.791)

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is a Federal Law that protects the buyer of any product which costs more than $25 and comes with an express written warranty. This law applies to any product that you buy that does not perform as it should.

Your car is a major investment, rationalized by the peace of mind that flows from its expected dependability and safety. Accordingly, you are entitled to expect an automobile properly constructed and regulated to provide reasonably safe, trouble-free, and dependable transportation – regardless of the exact make and model you bought. Unfortunately, sometimes these principles do not hold true and defects arise in automobiles. Although one defect is not actionable, repeated defects are as there exists a generally accepted rule that unsuccessful repair efforts render the warrantor liable. Simply put, there comes a time when “enough is enough” – when after having to take your car into the shop for repairs an inordinate number of times and experiencing all of the attendant inconvenience, you are entitled to say, ‘That’s all,’ and revoke, notwithstanding the seller’s repeated good faith efforts to fix the car. The rationale behind these basic principles is clear: once your faith in the vehicle is shaken, the vehicle loses its real value to you and becomes an instrument whose integrity is impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension. The question thus becomes when is “enough”?

As you know, enough is never enough from your warrantor’s point of view and you should simply continue to have your defective vehicle repaired – time and time again. However, you are not required to allow a warrantor to tinker with your vehicle indefinitely in the hope that it may eventually be fixed. Rather, you are entitled to expect your vehicle to be repaired within a reasonable opportunity. To this end, both the federal Moss Warranty Act, and the various state “lemon laws,” require repairs to your vehicle be performed within a reasonable opportunity.

Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a warrantor should perform adequate repairs in at least two, and possibly three, attempts to correct a particular defect. Further, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s reasonableness requirement applies to your vehicle as a whole rather than to each individual defect that arises. Although most of the Lemon Laws vary from state to state, each individual law usually require a warrantor to cure a specific defect within four to five attempts or the automobile as a whole within thirty days. If the warrantor fails to meet this obligation, most of the lemon laws provide for a full refund or new replacement vehicle. Further, this reasonable number of attempts/reasonable opportunity standard, whether it be that of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or that of the Lemon Laws, is akin to strict liability – once this threshold has been met, the continued existence of a defect is irrelevant and you are still entitled to relief.

One of the most important parts of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is its fee shifting provision. This provision provides that you may recover the attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of your case if you are successful – independent of how much you actually win. That rational behind this fee shifting provision is to twofold: (1) to ensure you will be able to vindicate your rights without having to expend large sums on attorney’s fees and (2) because automobile manufacturers are able to write off all expenses of defense as a legitimate business expense, whereas you, the average consumer, obviously does not have that kind of economic staying power. Most of the Lemon Laws contain similar fee shifting provisions.

You may also derive additional warranty rights from the Uniform Commercial Code; however, the Code does not allow you in most states to recover your attorney fees and is also not as consumer friendly as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or the various state lemon laws.

The narrative information on Magnuson-Moss, UCC and Nevada lemon laws on these pages is provided by Marshall Meyers, attorney.

Uniform Commercial Code Summary

The Uniform Commercial Code or UCC has been enacted in all 50 states and some of the territories of the United States. It is the primary source of law in all contracts dealing with the sale of products. The TARR refers to Tender, Acceptance, Rejection, Revocation and applies to different aspects of the consumer’s “relationship” with the purchased goods.

TENDER –The tender provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code contained in Section2-601 provide that the buyer is entitled to reject any goods that fail in any respect to conform to the contract. Unfortunately, new cars are often technically complex and their innermost workings are beyond the understanding of the average new car buyer. The buyer, therefore, does not know whether the goods are then conforming.

ACCEPTANCE –The new car buyer accepts the goods believing and expecting that the manufacturer will repair any problem he has with the goods under the warranty.

REJECTION –The new car buyer may discover a problem with the vehicle within the first few miles of his purchase. This would allow the new car buyer to reject the goods. If the new car buyer discovers a defect in the car within a reasonable time to inspect the vehicle, he may reject the vehicle. This period is not defined. On the one hand, the buyer must be given a reasonable time to inspect and that reasonable time to inspect will be held as an acceptance of the vehicle. The Courts will decide this reasonable time to inspect based on the knowledge and experience of the buyer, the difficulty in discovering the defect, and the opportunity to discover the defect.
The following is an example of a case of rejection: Mr. Zabriskie purchase a new 1966 Chevrolet Biscayne. After picking up the car on Friday evening, while en route to his home 2.5 miles away, and within 7/10ths of a mile from the dealership, the car stalled and stalled again within 15 feet. Thereafter, the car would only drive in low gear. The buyer rejected the vehicle and stopped payment on his check. The dealer contended that the buyer could not reject the car because he had driven it around the block and that was his reasonable opportunity to inspect. The New Jersey Court said;

It is suggested that Courts will tend to excuse use by consumers if possible.

REVOCATION –What happens when the consumer has used the new car for a lengthy period of time? This is the typical lemon car case. The UCC provides that a buyer may revoke his acceptance of goods whose non-conformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to him when he has accepted the goods without discovery of a non-conformity because it was difficult to discover or if he was assured that non-conformities would be repaired. Of course, the average new car buyer does not learn of the nonconformity until hundreds of thousands of miles later. And because quality is job one, and manufacturers are competing on the basis of their warranties, the consumer always is assured that any noncomformities he does discover will be remedied.
What is a noncomformity substantially impairing the value of the vehicle?

1. A noncomformity may include a number of relatively minor defects whose cumulative total adds up to a substantial impairment. This is the “Shake Faith” Doctrine first stated in the Zabrisikie case. “For a majority of people the purchase of a new car is a major investment, rationalized by the peace of mind that flows from its dependability and safety. Once their faith is shaken, the vehicle loses not only its real value in their eyes, but becomes an instrument whose integrity is substantially impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension”.
2. A substantial noncomformity may include a failure or refusal to repair the goods under the warranty. In Durfee V. Rod Baxter Imports, the Minnesota Court held that the Saab owner that was plagued by a series of of annoying minor defects and stalling, which were never repaired after a number of attempts, could revoke, “if repairs are not successfully undertaken within a reasonable time”, the consumer may elect to revoke.
3. Substantial Non Conformity and Lemon Laws often define what may be considered a substantial impairment. These definitions have been successfully used to flesh out the substantial impairment in the UCC.

Additional narrative information on Magnusson-Moss, UCC and Nevada lemon laws on these pages is provided by T. Michael Flinn, attorney.