681.104
Nonconformity of motor vehicles.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
681.104 Nonconformity of motor vehicles.—
(1)(a) After three attempts have been made to repair the same nonconformity, the consumer shall give written notification, by registered or express mail to the manufacturer, of the need to repair the nonconformity to allow the manufacturer a final attempt to cure the nonconformity. The manufacturer shall have 10 days, commencing upon receipt of such notification, to respond and give the consumer the opportunity to have the motor vehicle repaired at a reasonably accessible repair facility within a reasonable time after the consumer’s receipt of the response. The manufacturer shall have 10 days, except in the case of a recreational vehicle, in which event the manufacturer shall have 45 days, commencing upon the delivery of the motor vehicle to the designated repair facility by the consumer, to conform the motor vehicle to the warranty. If the manufacturer fails to respond to the consumer and give the consumer the opportunity to have the motor vehicle repaired at a reasonably accessible repair facility or perform the repairs within the time periods prescribed in this subsection, the requirement that the manufacturer be given a final attempt to cure the nonconformity does not apply.
(b) If the motor vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of one or more nonconformities by the manufacturer or its authorized service agent for a cumulative total of 15 or more days, exclusive of downtime for routine maintenance prescribed by the owner’s manual, the consumer shall so notify the manufacturer in writing by registered or express mail to give the manufacturer or its authorized service agent an opportunity to inspect or repair the vehicle.
(2)(a) If the manufacturer, or its authorized service agent, cannot conform the motor vehicle to the warranty by repairing or correcting any nonconformity after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer, within 40 days, shall repurchase the motor vehicle and refund the full purchase price to the consumer, less a reasonable offset for use, or, in consideration of its receipt of payment from the consumer of a reasonable offset for use, replace the motor vehicle with a replacement motor vehicle acceptable to the consumer. The refund or replacement must include all reasonably incurred collateral and incidental charges. However, the consumer has an unconditional right to choose a refund rather than a replacement motor vehicle. Upon receipt of such refund or replacement, the consumer, lienholder, or lessor shall furnish to the manufacturer clear title to and possession of the motor vehicle.
(b) Refunds shall be made to the consumer and lienholder of record, if any, as their interests may appear. If applicable, refunds shall be made to the lessor and lessee as follows: The lessee shall receive the lessee cost and the lessor shall receive the lease price less the lessee cost. A penalty for early lease termination may not be assessed against a lessee who receives a replacement motor vehicle or refund under this chapter. The Department of Revenue shall refund to the manufacturer any sales tax which the manufacturer refunded to the consumer, lienholder, or lessor under this section, if the manufacturer provides to the department a written request for a refund and evidence that the sales tax was paid when the vehicle was purchased and that the manufacturer refunded the sales tax to the consumer, lienholder, or lessor.
(3) It is presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to the warranty if, during the Lemon Law rights period, either:
(a) The same nonconformity has been subject to repair at least three times by the manufacturer or its authorized service agent, plus a final attempt by the manufacturer to repair the motor vehicle if undertaken as provided for in paragraph (1)(a), and such nonconformity continues to exist; or
(b) The motor vehicle has been out of service by reason of repair of one or more nonconformities by the manufacturer, or its authorized service agent, for a cumulative total of 30 or more days, 60 or more days in the case of a recreational vehicle, exclusive of downtime for routine maintenance prescribed by the owner’s manual. The manufacturer or its authorized service agent must have had at least one opportunity to inspect or repair the vehicle following receipt of the notification as provided in paragraph (1)(b). The 30-day period, or 60-day period in the case of a recreational vehicle, may be extended by any period of time during which repair services are not available to the consumer because of war, invasion, strike, fire, flood, or natural disaster.
(4) It is an affirmative defense to any claim under this chapter that:
(a) The alleged nonconformity does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the motor vehicle;
(b) The nonconformity is the result of an accident, abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications or alterations of the motor vehicle by persons other than the manufacturer or its authorized service agent; or
(c) The claim by the consumer was not filed in good faith.
Any other affirmative defense allowed by law may be raised against the claim.
History.—s. 5, ch. 83-69; s. 3, ch. 84-55; s. 41, ch. 85-62; s. 4, ch. 85-240; s. 2, ch. 86-229; ss. 4, 19, ch. 88-95; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 4, ch. 92-88; s. 4, ch. 97-245.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: King v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale
King v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale (2001)
“103 which does not rise to the level of a "nonconformity" under section 681.104 because it does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 681.”
KIA MOTORS AMERICA CORPORATION v. Butler (2008)
“§ 681.104, Fla. Stat. (2007). Attorney fees are recoverable under both the MMWA and Lemon Law.”
Chrysler Corp. v. Pitsirelos (1998)
“[4] § 681.104, Fla. Stat. (1989). A "nonconformity" is "a defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle.”
Gelinas v. Forest River, Inc. (2006)
“103 which does not rise to the level of a "nonconformity" under section 681.104 because it does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 681.”
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. v. Cerasani (2007)
“(2006) (including lessee within definition of "consumer" and providing definitions of "lease price," "lessee," "lessee cost," and "lessor"); § 681.104(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that in the case of vehicles that do not conform to the manufacturer's warranty after a…”
Caplan v. 1616 East Sunrise Motors, Inc. (1988)
“[3] Although the Lemon Law does contain fee provisions authorizing an award of fees to the consumer, § 681.104(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1983), and to a defendant in an action brought in bad faith, § 681.”
Mason v. Porsche Cars of North America (1997)
“Section 681.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in part: After three attempts have been made to repair the same nonconformity, the consumer shall give written notification, by registered or express mail to the manufacturer, of the need to repair the nonconformity to…”
Chrysler Corp. v. Weinstein (1988)
“; that Chrysler did not prove that opposing counsel had spent increased time preparing claims on which he did not prevail, thus obviating the need to reduce the number of hours for which fees should be awarded; that the attorney was entitled to 0 per hour; that the lodestar…”
Allison Transmission, Inc. v. JR Sailing, Inc. (2006)
“Section 681.104(2)(a) requires the manufacturer to conform the motor vehicle to the warranty or repurchase the vehicle.”
General Motors Corp. v. Sanchez (2009)
“See § 681.104(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). After General Motors fully complied with that order, Sanchez brought the present, separate proceeding in the circuit court.”
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Singh (1995)
“On October 29, 1992, pursuant to section 681.104, Florida Statutes, Singh sent BMW a notice of continuing defects in the "air conditioning, brakes, transmission, decreased power in engine.”
Maserati Automobiles Inc. v. Caplan (1988)
“Holding that Caplan presented sufficient evidence as to the value of the car, we affirm the trial court's ruling.”
— 681.104(1) — 2 cases
Chrysler Corp. v. Pitsirelos (1998)
“[4] § 681.104, Fla. Stat. (1989). A "nonconformity" is "a defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle.”
— 681.104(1)(a) — 2 cases
Mason v. Porsche Cars of North America (1997)
“Section 681.104(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in part: After three attempts have been made to repair the same nonconformity, the consumer shall give written notification, by registered or express mail to the manufacturer, of the need to repair the nonconformity to…”
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Singh (1995)
“On October 29, 1992, pursuant to section 681.104, Florida Statutes, Singh sent BMW a notice of continuing defects in the "air conditioning, brakes, transmission, decreased power in engine.”
— 681.104(1)(b) — 1 case
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Singh (1995)
“On October 29, 1992, pursuant to section 681.104, Florida Statutes, Singh sent BMW a notice of continuing defects in the "air conditioning, brakes, transmission, decreased power in engine.”
— 681.104(2) — 1 case
King v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale (2001)
“103 which does not rise to the level of a "nonconformity" under section 681.104 because it does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 681.”
— 681.104(2)(a) — 8 cases
King v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale (2001)
“103 which does not rise to the level of a "nonconformity" under section 681.104 because it does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 681.”
Allison Transmission, Inc. v. JR Sailing, Inc. (2006)
“Section 681.104(2)(a) requires the manufacturer to conform the motor vehicle to the warranty or repurchase the vehicle.”
Gelinas v. Forest River, Inc. (2006)
“103 which does not rise to the level of a "nonconformity" under section 681.104 because it does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 681.”
General Motors Corp. v. Sanchez (2009)
“See § 681.104(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). After General Motors fully complied with that order, Sanchez brought the present, separate proceeding in the circuit court.”
Maserati Automobiles Inc. v. Caplan (1988)
“Holding that Caplan presented sufficient evidence as to the value of the car, we affirm the trial court's ruling.”
— 681.104(2)(b) — 1 case
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. v. Cerasani (2007)
“(2006) (including lessee within definition of "consumer" and providing definitions of "lease price," "lessee," "lessee cost," and "lessor"); § 681.104(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that in the case of vehicles that do not conform to the manufacturer's warranty after a…”
— 681.104(3)(a) — 1 case
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Singh (1995)
“On October 29, 1992, pursuant to section 681.104, Florida Statutes, Singh sent BMW a notice of continuing defects in the "air conditioning, brakes, transmission, decreased power in engine.”
— 681.104(4) — 2 cases
King v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale (2001)
“103 which does not rise to the level of a "nonconformity" under section 681.104 because it does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 681.”
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Singh (1995)
“On October 29, 1992, pursuant to section 681.104, Florida Statutes, Singh sent BMW a notice of continuing defects in the "air conditioning, brakes, transmission, decreased power in engine.”
— 681.104(5)(a) — 2 cases
King v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale (2001)
“103 which does not rise to the level of a "nonconformity" under section 681.104 because it does not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 681.”
— 681.104(5)(b) — 3 cases
Caplan v. 1616 East Sunrise Motors, Inc. (1988)
“[3] Although the Lemon Law does contain fee provisions authorizing an award of fees to the consumer, § 681.104(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1983), and to a defendant in an action brought in bad faith, § 681.”
Chrysler Corp. v. Weinstein (1988)
“; that Chrysler did not prove that opposing counsel had spent increased time preparing claims on which he did not prevail, thus obviating the need to reduce the number of hours for which fees should be awarded; that the attorney was entitled to 0 per hour; that the lodestar…”
— 681.104(l)(a) — 1 case
Medina v. Ford Motor Co. (2010)
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.