55 Cal.App.5th 220
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Ramos leased a new 2013 Mercedes‑Benz E350 and experienced recurring steering/grinding noises prompting multiple repair visits between Apr 2014 and Oct 2015.
- Dealer performed various repairs; ultimately identified and replaced the rack‑and‑pinion in Oct 2015. Total days in shop ~44, but no single visit exceeded 30 days.
- Ramos requested repurchase in Dec 2014; manufacturer declined. He returned the vehicle at lease end (May 2016) and sued under the Song‑Beverly Consumer Warranty Act alleging failure to repair within 30 days, failure to replace or restitution after reasonable attempts, and breach of implied warranty.
- Jury found (1) the vehicle did not have a nonconformity that substantially impaired use, value, or safety, and was fit for ordinary purposes; (2) defendant failed to complete repairs within 30 days; and (3) incidental and consequential damages of $1,800.
- Trial court entered judgment for $1,800. Ramos appealed, arguing he was entitled to full restitution (the purchase price/amount paid under lease) as a remedy for the 30‑day repair violation. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to complete warranted repairs within 30 days entitles buyer to replacement/restitution (full price) under Song‑Beverly | Ramos: A §1793.2(b) 30‑day repair violation allows restitution of everything paid (via §1794 referencing §1793.2(d)). | Respondents: The replacement/restitution remedy is limited to §1793.2(d) conditions (unable to repair after reasonable attempts for a substantial nonconformity). | Held: No. Restitution/repurchase is available only under §1793.2(d) conditions (substantial nonconformity/unable to repair after reasonable attempts); mere §1793.2(b) delay does not authorize full restitution. |
| Whether revocation of acceptance under §1794(b)(1)/UCC §2711 entitles Ramos to recover purchase price | Ramos: He effectively revoked acceptance (requested buyback, sued) and thus may recover amounts paid. | Respondents: Revocation must be justifiable (nonconformity that substantially impairs); jury found no substantial impairment, so revocation was not justified. | Held: No. Jury’s verdict that there was no substantial impairment precludes justifiable revocation; UCC revocation remedy is not available here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 32 Cal.4th 1246 (2004) (replacement/restitution remedy limited to conditions in §1793.2(d))
- Kirzhner v. Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC, 9 Cal.5th 966 (2020) (explaining statutory context and that restitution arises only after inability to repair after reasonable attempts)
- Krotin v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 38 Cal.App.4th 294 (1995) (buyer need not revoke acceptance to pursue §1793.2(d) remedy)
- Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 402 (2003) (remedies for breach of implied warranty can include cancellation and recovery of amounts paid)
- Music Acceptance Corp. v. Lofing, 32 Cal.App.4th 610 (1995) (same—discussing implied warranty remedies including contract cancellation)