TARR BABY-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;
To the layman, the complicated mechanisms of
today's automobile are a complete mystery. To have the
automobile inspected by someone with sufficient expertise to
disassemble the vehicle in order the discover latent defects
before the contract is signed, is assuredly impossible and
highly impractical. Consequently, the first few miles of driving
become even more significant to the excited new car buyer. This
is the buyer's first reasonable opportunity to enjoy his new
vehicle to see if it conforms to what it was represented to be
and whether he is getting what he bargained for. How long the
buyer may drive the new car under the guise of inspection of new
goods is not an issue in the present case because 7/10th of a
mile is clearly within the ambit of a reasonable opportunity to
inspect. Zabriskie Chevrolet, Inc. V. Smith, 240 A. 2d 195(1968)
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
non-conformities he does discover will be remedied.
What is a non-conformity substantially impairing
the value of the vehicle?
1) A non-conformity 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 non-conformity 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 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.
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.
Editorial provided by:
The Consumer Law Center, Lemon Law Attorneys
