Debunking Common Lemon Law MythsOnce it becomes obvious that some sort of action will have to be taken in order to receive refund or replacement for a defective automobile you probably start researching into lemon law. What may not be some well known to those who have not had to deal with such a situation before is that there are some common lemon law myths out there. You may have heard at some point that you do not have any claim once a vehicle receives repairs, or no case can be made once a problem vehicle is traded away, the car does not meet lemon law specs, or that you must file a claim quickly because you have limited time to do so. At this time, it might be a good idea to expose some of these myths for what they are and provide a little clarity to a somewhat confusing situation for many consumers. The first of four common lemon law myths involves the status of your claim even if the vehicle is fixed later by the manufacturer. The myth says that you are longer eligible for refund or replacement of that vehicle since it was repaired eventually. Hence, it does not matter if the vehicle was fixed at a later time since you retain the rights under lemon law to collect on the time loss waiting on repair of the defective automobile. The vehicle was not fixed in a reasonable amount of time; therefore, you are under lemon law protection and can as for restitution or complete vehicle replacement. Now, if you have had to replace your defective vehicle due to negligence or protracted delays on the part of dealership or manufacturer you may have encountered the next myth. Stated simply, this second myth says that once you have traded in your lemon you no longer have a viable case for restitution under lemon law. The fact is, you can still collect a cash settlement even if you have traded in the defective automobile. There both federal and state statutes that protect your right to receive a refund even if a trade-in occurred. The vehicle failed to meet advertised expectations and required the replacement of the vehicle. Lemon laws recognize this distinction and respond accordingly. Moving on to the next myth, you can see that some use the ignorance of lemon law requirements to confuse. The third common lemon law myth is that your vehicle somehow fails to meet the recognized qualifications to receive relief via lemon law. In response, it must be made clear that most lemon laws do not outline very specific qualifications. This myth has been exploited repeatedly by manufacturers and dealers alike to cut down on the number of lemon law claims that actually get filed. The way to remedy this situation is to get informed regarding not just relevant lemon law but also other consumer protection laws on the state and federal level. Myth number four relates to the timeframe for making a lemon law claim. Myth number four states that lemon law claims are subject to very short timeframe for valid filing (such as one year). This of course is absolutely false! In fact, claimants have upwards of four years to issue a claim. This limit begins once a warranty is breached by repeated repair attempts. It is amazing how pervasive these lemon law myths can be and how they can affect many motorists' experiences. |