Brand v. Hyundai Motor America
226 Cal. App. 4th 1538
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Brand leased a new 2012 Hyundai Genesis; within a week the sunroof began to open and close spontaneously while he was driving, causing distraction and loose papers to blow around the cabin.
- Brand returned the car to the dealer; dealer diagnosed an electrical short in the sunroof wiring and attempted repairs over several days, but Brand lost confidence and demanded rescission.
- Hyundai offered to waive lease payments but refused rescission; Brand filed suit alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act.
- At trial Brand testified to the spontaneous opening/closing; the dealer’s service manager (called under Evid. Code § 776) described an intermittent short but had no explanation for its cause or recurrence.
- The trial court granted Hyundai’s motion for nonsuit, concluding the sunroof malfunction did not rise to a breach of the implied warranty.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding a jury could find the defect created a safety hazard and thus breached the implied warranty of merchantability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spontaneous opening/closing sunroof breached implied warranty of merchantability | Brand: defect created a safety hazard making the car unmerchantable and justified rescission | Hyundai: single, easily-fixable minor defect does not render vehicle unfit; vehicle still provides transportation | Reversed nonsuit — a jury could find the defect created a substantial safety hazard and breached the implied warranty |
| Whether buyer must allow repair attempts (express-warranty cure) before seeking rescission for implied-warranty breach | Brand: need not await repairs for fundamental safety defects; dealer’s failed repairs undermined confidence | Hyundai: entitled to cure period analogous to express warranty (30 days) | Court: Implied warranty remedies differ; buyer need not await repairs for fundamental defects and may rescind when defect undermines confidence |
| Whether evidence established defect "passing without objection in the trade" or "ordinary fitness" | Brand: testimony and service manager’s admission (electrical short) support merchantability claim | Hyundai: lacking proof the vehicle differed from trade or that defect was widespread/minor | Court: trade and fitness elements overlap; plaintiff’s evidence sufficiently raised triable issue on merchantability |
| Whether successful post-delivery repair negates rescission claim | Brand: record did not establish repair success; buyer’s testimony must be credited on nonsuit review | Hyundai: repair before suit cured defect, defeating rescission | Court: On nonsuit review, must accept plaintiff’s evidence; Hyundai did not establish successful repair as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Nally v. Grace Community Church, 47 Cal.3d 278 (court explained nonsuit standard and appellate review)
- Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 402 (buyer need not await repairs to rescind for fundamental implied-warranty defects)
- American Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.4th 1291 (merchantability focuses on minimum quality and fitness for ordinary use)
- Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 155 Cal.App.4th 19 (implied warranty includes safety; vehicle fitness not limited to mere transit capability)
- Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 1297 (merchantability requires safe condition and substantially free of defects)
- Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 838 F.Supp.2d 929 (implied warranty standard: reasonably suited for ordinary use)
- Music Acceptance Corp. v. Lofing, 32 Cal.App.4th 610 (distinguishing implied from express warranty remedies)
- Atkinson v. Elk Corp. of Texas, 142 Cal.App.4th 212 (implied warranty breach may arise within first year after sale)
- Carlson v. General Motors Corp., 883 F.2d 287 (merchantable vehicle must provide safe, reliable transportation)