A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a manufacturer who sells an assistive device to a consumer, directly or through an assistive device dealer, shall give the consumer an express warranty against defects, malfunctions or conditions for the assistive device. The duration of the express warranty shall be for at least one year after the initial delivery of the assistive device to the consumer.
B. In the absence of an express warranty from the manufacturer, the manufacturer is deemed to have expressly warranted to the consumer that the assistive device will be free from any defect, malfunction or condition that substantially impairs the use, safety or value of the assistive device. The duration of the express warranty shall be for at least one year after the initial delivery of the assistive device to the consumer.
C. During the period of the express warranty, if a new assistive device does not conform to the express warranty and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, the manufacturer's authorized assistive device dealers or the assistive device lessor and makes the assistive device available for repair, the nonconformity shall be repaired at no charge to the consumer.
D. If the nonconformity is not repaired after a reasonable attempt to make a repair, a consumer, as defined in section 44-1351, paragraph 5, subdivision (a), (b) or (c), may direct the manufacturer to perform one of the following options and the manufacturer shall comply with the option chosen by the consumer:
1. Accept return of the assistive device and replace the assistive device with a comparable new assistive device and refund any collateral costs to the consumer and assistive device lessor.
2. Accept return of the assistive device and refund to the consumer and to any holder of a perfected security interest in the assistive device the full purchase price plus any finance charge paid by the consumer at the point of sale and collateral costs minus a reasonable allowance for use. A reasonable allowance for use shall not exceed the amount obtained by multiplying the full purchase price of the assistive device by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of days that the assistive device was used before the consumer first reported the nonconformity to the assistive device dealer and the denominator of which is one thousand eight hundred twenty-five.
E. If the nonconformity is not repaired after a reasonable attempt to make a repair, a consumer, as defined in section 44-1351, paragraph 5, subdivision (d), may direct the manufacturer to perform one of the following options and the manufacturer shall comply with the option chosen by the consumer:
1. Accept return of the assistive device, replace the assistive device with a comparable new assistive device and refund any collateral cost to the consumer and assistive device dealer.
2. Refund to the assistive device lessor and to any holder of a perfected security interest in the assistive device the current value of the written lease and refund to the consumer the amount that the consumer paid under the written lease plus all collateral costs minus a reasonable allowance for use. A reasonable allowance for use shall not exceed the amount obtained by multiplying the total amount for which the written lease obligates the consumer by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of days that the assistive device was used before the consumer first reported the nonconformity to the manufacturer, assistive device lessor or assistive device dealer and the denominator of which is one thousand eight hundred twenty-five.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2021 · leading case:
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 150 P.3d 773 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 150 P.3d 773 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “§ 44-1352(A). If a manufacturer does not provide an express warranty, the statute creates a one-year express warranty.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 30× “) According to Braun, AADWA offers two separate paths for consumers: 21 (1) the path of warranty repairs (“Repair Path”), § 44-1352, which allows a consumer to 22 seek repairs and then, if the device cannot be repaired, to request a refund or replacement 23 without triggering…”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 44-1352(D). It also does not imply, as 23 Plaintiffs contend, that “Plaintiffs somehow waived their right to a replacement” or that 24 Braun only “conditionally” accepted Plaintiffs’ demand.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 3× “6 § 44-1352(A), (C). 7 The AADWA further provides that if a manufacturer cannot repair a non-conformity 8 “after a reasonable attempt,” the consumer has the right to “direct the manufacturer” to 9 either (1) provide a “comparable” replacement, while “refund[ing] any collateral…”
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “§ 44-1352(A). If a manufacturer does not provide an express warranty, the statute creates a one-year express warranty.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1352(A) — 4 cases
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 150 P.3d 773 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“§ 44-1352(A). If a manufacturer does not provide an express warranty, the statute creates a one-year express warranty.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
“) According to Braun, AADWA offers two separate paths for consumers: 21 (1) the path of warranty repairs (“Repair Path”), § 44-1352, which allows a consumer to 22 seek repairs and then, if the device cannot be repaired, to request a refund or replacement 23 without triggering…”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2020).
“6 § 44-1352(A), (C). 7 The AADWA further provides that if a manufacturer cannot repair a non-conformity 8 “after a reasonable attempt,” the consumer has the right to “direct the manufacturer” to 9 either (1) provide a “comparable” replacement, while “refund[ing] any collateral…”
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“§ 44-1352(A). If a manufacturer does not provide an express warranty, the statute creates a one-year express warranty.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1352(B) — 3 cases
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 150 P.3d 773 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“§ 44-1352(A). If a manufacturer does not provide an express warranty, the statute creates a one-year express warranty.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
“) According to Braun, AADWA offers two separate paths for consumers: 21 (1) the path of warranty repairs (“Repair Path”), § 44-1352, which allows a consumer to 22 seek repairs and then, if the device cannot be repaired, to request a refund or replacement 23 without triggering…”
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“§ 44-1352(A). If a manufacturer does not provide an express warranty, the statute creates a one-year express warranty.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1352(C) — 3 cases
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 150 P.3d 773 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“§ 44-1352(A). If a manufacturer does not provide an express warranty, the statute creates a one-year express warranty.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
“) According to Braun, AADWA offers two separate paths for consumers: 21 (1) the path of warranty repairs (“Repair Path”), § 44-1352, which allows a consumer to 22 seek repairs and then, if the device cannot be repaired, to request a refund or replacement 23 without triggering…”
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“§ 44-1352(A). If a manufacturer does not provide an express warranty, the statute creates a one-year express warranty.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1352(D) — 3 cases
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
“) According to Braun, AADWA offers two separate paths for consumers: 21 (1) the path of warranty repairs (“Repair Path”), § 44-1352, which allows a consumer to 22 seek repairs and then, if the device cannot be repaired, to request a refund or replacement 23 without triggering…”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
“A.R.S. § 44-1352(D). It also does not imply, as 23 Plaintiffs contend, that “Plaintiffs somehow waived their right to a replacement” or that 24 Braun only “conditionally” accepted Plaintiffs’ demand.”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2020).
“6 § 44-1352(A), (C). 7 The AADWA further provides that if a manufacturer cannot repair a non-conformity 8 “after a reasonable attempt,” the consumer has the right to “direct the manufacturer” to 9 either (1) provide a “comparable” replacement, while “refund[ing] any collateral…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1352(D)(1) — 2 cases
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2020).
“6 § 44-1352(A), (C). 7 The AADWA further provides that if a manufacturer cannot repair a non-conformity 8 “after a reasonable attempt,” the consumer has the right to “direct the manufacturer” to 9 either (1) provide a “comparable” replacement, while “refund[ing] any collateral…”
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
“) According to Braun, AADWA offers two separate paths for consumers: 21 (1) the path of warranty repairs (“Repair Path”), § 44-1352, which allows a consumer to 22 seek repairs and then, if the device cannot be repaired, to request a refund or replacement 23 without triggering…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1352(D)(2) — 1 case
Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
“) According to Braun, AADWA offers two separate paths for consumers: 21 (1) the path of warranty repairs (“Repair Path”), § 44-1352, which allows a consumer to 22 seek repairs and then, if the device cannot be repaired, to request a refund or replacement 23 without triggering…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.