(a)“Motor vehicle” means any vehicle required to be registered under the Vehicle Code. Motor vehicle does not include any trailer which is sold in conjunction with a vessel.
(b)“Lessor” includes “bailor” and is a person who is engaged in the business of leasing, offering to lease or arranging the lease of a motor vehicle under a lease contract.
For the purpose of this subdivision, “person” means an individual, partnership,
corporation, limited liability company, estate, trust, cooperative, association or any other legal entity.
(c)“Lessee” includes “bailee” and is a natural person who leases, offers to lease or is offered the lease of a motor vehicle under a lease contract.
(d)“Lease contract” means any contract for or in contemplation of the lease or bailment for the use of a motor vehicle, and the purchase of services incidental thereto, by a natural person for a term exceeding four months, primarily for personal, family or household purposes, whether or not it is agreed that the lessee bear the risk of the motor vehicle’s depreciation. Lease contract does not include a lease for agricultural, business or commercial purposes, or to a government or governmental agency or instrumentality.
(e)“Regulation M” means any rule,
regulation, or interpretation promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the federal Consumer Leasing Act (15 U.S.C. Secs. 1667-1667e), and any interpretation or approval issued by an official or employee of the Federal Reserve System duly authorized by the board to issue such interpretations or approvals.
(f)“Constant yield method” means the following:
(1)In the case of a periodic payment lease, the method of determining the rent charge portion of each base payment in which the rent charge for each computational period is earned in advance by multiplying the constant rate implicit in the lease contract times the balance subject to rent charge as it declines during the scheduled lease term. At any time during the scheduled term of a periodic payment lease, the balance subject to rent charge is the difference between the adjusted capitalized cost
and the sum of (A) all depreciation and other amortized amounts accrued during the preceding computational periods and (B) the first base periodic payment.
(2)In the case of a single payment lease, the method of determining the periodic earning of rent charges in which the rent charge for each computational period is earned in advance by multiplying the constant rate implicit in the lease contract times the balance subject to rent charge as it increases during the scheduled lease term. At any time during the scheduled term of a single payment lease, the balance subject to rent charge is determined by subtracting from the residual value the total rent charge scheduled to be earned over the term of the lease contract and adding to the difference all rent charges accrued during the preceding computational periods.
(3)Periodic rent charge calculations are based on the assumption
that the lessor will receive the lease payments on their exact due dates and that the lease does not end before its scheduled termination date.
Notes of Decisions
D.C. v. Harvard-Westlake Sch., 176 Cal. App. 4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “) and the Vehicle Leasing Act (VLA) (Civ. Code, § 2985.7 et seq.) for failing to lease a vehicle at the advertised price.”
Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc., 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
“The complaint includes causes of action against all defendants alleging violation of the California Vehicle Leasing Act (VLA) (Civ. Code, § 2985.7 et seq.), and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus.”
Parada v. Superior Court, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“) They sued the defendants for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, for violations of the California Vehicle Leasing Act (Civ. Code, § 2985.7 et seq.), the UCL, and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ.”
Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc., 205 Cal. App. 4th 436 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
“On January 14, 2011, Lewis filed this action against Fletcher Jones, alleging claims for (1) violation of the Vehicle Leasing Act (Civ. Code, § 2985.7 et seq.); (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ.”
Lachapelle v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 49 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
“Appellant sought rescission of the agreement and damages, alleging that the transaction violated various provisions of the Vehicle Leasing Act (VLA) (Civ. Code, § 2985.7 et seq.), the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ.”
Bescos v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “In this appeal from a summary judgment, the primary issue is whether a lending institution, which finances a vehicle lease but is not an agent of the automobile dealer in the lease transaction, may be responsible as a lessor for misrepresentations made by the dealer in violation…”
Brown v. West Covina Toyota, 26 Cal. App. 4th 555 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
“or a ‘lease contract’ subject to the provisions of the Vehicle Leasing Act, Civil Code section 2985.7 et seq.” The second cause of action, captioned breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly), alleges that defendant failed to perform…”
Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 155 Cal. App. 3d 315 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).
“12 For requirements of automobile leases, see the Automobile Leasing Act, Civil Code section 2985.7 et seq. 13 The Toyota ads stated, “That’s right for only $99.”
Hart v. Autowest Dodge, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
“In this action alleging violations of the Vehicle Leasing Act (Civ. Code, § 2985.7 et seq.; VLA) 1 and the unfair competition law (Bus.”
Flannery v. VW Credit, Inc., 232 Cal. App. 4th 606 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
“’s (VW) failure to comply with provisions of California’s Vehicle Leasing Act (VLA) (Civ. Code, § 2985.7 et seq.), VW violated California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ.”
Moreno v. Greenwood Auto Ctr., 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
“(Civ. Code, § 2985.7 et seq.) 1 In the published portion of the opinion, we discuss whether prejudgment interest may be recovered in a conversion action where defendant was assessed damages for plaintiff’s loss of use of her 1996 pickup truck and other financial losses.”
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.