Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 1791 defining consumer goods to mean “new” goods, the obligation of a distributor or retail seller of used consumer goods in a sale in which an express warranty is given shall be the same as that imposed on manufacturers under this chapter except:
(a)It shall be the obligation of the distributor or retail seller making express warranties with respect to used consumer goods (and not the original manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller making express warranties with respect to such goods when new) to maintain sufficient
service and repair facilities within this state to carry out the terms of such express warranties.
(b)The provisions of Section 1793.5 shall not apply to the sale of used consumer goods sold in this state.
(c)The duration of the implied warranty of merchantability and where present the implied warranty of fitness with respect to used consumer goods sold in this state, where the sale is accompanied by an express warranty, shall be coextensive in duration with an express warranty which accompanies the consumer goods, provided the duration of the express warranty is reasonable, but in no event shall such implied warranties have a duration of less than 30 days nor more than three months following the sale of used consumer goods to a retail buyer. Where no duration for an express warranty is stated with respect to such goods, or parts thereof, the duration of the implied warranties
shall be the maximum period prescribed above.
(d)The obligation of the distributor or retail seller who makes express warranties with respect to used goods that are sold in this state, shall extend to the sale of all such used goods, regardless of when such goods may have been manufactured.
Notes of Decisions
Johnson v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 272 F. Supp. 3d 1168 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
· cites it 4× “” Cal. Civ. Code § 1795.5 (a). It further states that “[t]he duration of the implied warranty of merchantability and where present the implied *1179 warranty of fitness with respect to used consumer goods.”
Jones v. Credit Auto Ctr., Inc., 237 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 1 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 3× “” (Civ. Code, § 1795.5.) Pursuant to Civil Code section 1791.”
Mui Ho v. Toyota Motor Corp., 931 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
“They claim that she may plead an implied warranty claim under Song-Beverly, because there is no dispute that she was given an express warranty when she bought her used Class Vehicle, and because a defendant can be held to have breached an implied warranty by selling a product…”
Williams v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 180 Cal. App. 3d 1244 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).
“Nor does the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code section 1795.5 serve to impair Williams’s remedies under strict liability/ implied warranty theory.”
Peterson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 44 F. Supp. 3d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
“Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.5(c). Here, Ms. Peterson alleged that her vehicle contained a latent defect in its WT assembly “at the time of purchase,” on or about September 4, 2007.”
David Ortega v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 422 F. App'x 599 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Preemption Ortega first argues the district court erred because the statute relied upon in granting Toyota’s Rule 50(b) motion, Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.5, is preempted by federal law.”
Coelho v. Hyundai Motor Am. (N.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 3× “” Cal. Civ. Code § 1795.5 (a). If further provides that “[t]he duration of the implied 12 warranty of merchantability .”
Kuyawa v. Mercedes- Benz USA, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2024).
· cites it 3× “3d at 1179 quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 1795.5 (a) (noting “[t]he plain language of the 15 section clearly only creates obligations on behalf of ‘the distributor or retail seller making express 16 warranties with respect to used consumer goods (and not the original manufacturer …)”)…”
Nilsen v. Tesla, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 2× “with respect to used consumer goods sold in this state, where the sale is 2 accompanied by an express warranty, shall be coextensive in duration with an express warranty 3 which accompanies the consumer goods.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1795.5(c) — 5 cases
Mui Ho v. Toyota Motor Corp., 931 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
“They claim that she may plead an implied warranty claim under Song-Beverly, because there is no dispute that she was given an express warranty when she bought her used Class Vehicle, and because a defendant can be held to have breached an implied warranty by selling a product…”
Peterson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 44 F. Supp. 3d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
“Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.5(c). Here, Ms. Peterson alleged that her vehicle contained a latent defect in its WT assembly “at the time of purchase,” on or about September 4, 2007.”
David Ortega v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 422 F. App'x 599 (9th Cir. 2011).
“Preemption Ortega first argues the district court erred because the statute relied upon in granting Toyota’s Rule 50(b) motion, Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.5, is preempted by federal law.”
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.