7 results for 'cat:"Vehicle" AND cat:"Warranty" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Novak denies Mercedes' motion to dismiss breach of warranty claims. A consumer purchased a van that, despite seven visits to three agents of the manufacturer, still does not function properly. The manufacturer wrongly claims the van doesn't fall under the federal warranty law because it is a commercial vehicle, but the consumer uses it as his personal vehicle.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Judge: Novak, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv755, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, warranty, contract
J. Fitzgerald finds in favor of Mercedes-Benz USA against the consumer's complaint that it sold a defective used 2017 Mercedes-Benz C300 but did not honor its new vehicle limited warranty, which extends “to the original and each subsequent owner of a new Mercedes- Benz vehicle that any authorized Mercedes-Benz Center will make any repairs or replacements necessary to correct defects in material or workmanship, but not design, arising during the warranty period.” Part of the warranty does not apply because the consumer bought the vehicle from CarMax, not Mercedes-Benz, and the other obligations do not apply because Mercedes-Benz did not breach the warranty when it provided free repairs to address the malfunctioning ECO start/stop feature during the warranty period.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Fitzgerald, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv3049, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, warranty, contract
J. Holcomb finds in favor of Mercedes-Benz USA against the customer’s complaint accusing the company of refusing to repair or replace a defective 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA250W. The customer leased the defective vehicle from Mercedes-Benz of Ontario, an MBUSA-affiliated dealership, but MBUSA was not implicated in the customer’s lease and it did not provide a new warranty for the vehicle, meaning it is not liable for any defects.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Holcomb, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 5:21cv1914, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, warranty, contract
J. Doughty denies summary judgment to both the manufacturer and a Louisiana seller a $350,000 motor home, declining to dismiss a suit by an equipment company based in Montana. There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the redhibitory defects of the vehicle for which the manufacturer is allegedly responsible. Moreover, there is also a genuine dispute of a material fact regarding the waiver in the “buyer’s order” and its relationship to a service contract for both the dealership and the manufacturer, making summary judgment on these issues inappropriate.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Doughty, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 6:22cv871, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, warranty, contract
J. Deguilio grants summary judgment to an RV manufacturer in this matter concerning a warranty. A consumer purchased an RV with a limited warranty from the manufacturer. Finding a number of defects with the RV, he took it to two different authorized dealers for repair. Several of the issues were addressed, but the consumer was dissatisfied and filed suit against the manufacturer. Despite participating in mediation, a resolution could not be reached. The instant court finds no breach of contract or express warranty.
Court: USDC Northern District of Indiana, Judge: Deguilio, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv222, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, warranty, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Theriot finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the purchaser of a truck and rescinded the sale due to known defects that the seller allegedly failed to disclose. The seller's argument that there was a waiver of warranty as to redhibitory defects is without merit, and the evidence shows that it knew of the defects at the time of the sale. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Theriot, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 2022CA1247, Categories: vehicle, warranty, contract
J. Rodriguez finds a lower court ruled correctly when it ruled against a consumer who had sued an auto shop for warranty claims. The consumer argued that the auto shop had not adequately repaired her car because she continued to experience car issues even after repairs, but that consumer has provided “no evidence” of how the auto shop’s “conduct” caused her continued car problems. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: 08-22-00106-CV, Categories: vehicle, warranty, contract