Illinois Compiled Statutes
815 ILCS 380/1 (2026)
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 380/1)
(from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 1201)
Sec. 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act.
(Source: P.A. 85-1350.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 2003–2018 · leading case: Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am., 854 N.E.2d 607 (Ill. 2006).
Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am., 854 N.E.2d 607 (Ill. 2006). “Plaintiff also alleged that Hyundai had violated the Illinois New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (815 ILCS 380/1 et seq. (West 2000)). The case initially went to arbitration.”
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). “Defendant also argues that the legislature perceived a problem specific to vehicle dealers which separates them from all other retailers, thus justifying different treatment under the Act.”
Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 875 N.E.2d 1047 (Ill. 2007). “(West 2006)), a manufacturer may be required to accept return of a new vehicle and make a full refund to the consumer where, after a reasonable number of attempts, the seller is unable to conform the new vehicle to any of its applicable express warranties.”
Voelker v. Porsche Cars North Am., Inc., 353 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2003). “), the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (815 ILCS 380/1, et seq. ), a theory of fraudulent inducement, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/2, et seq.”
Voelker v. Porsche Cars North Am., Inc., 353 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2003). “), the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (815 ILCS 380/1, et seq.), a theory of fraudulent inducement, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/2, et seq.”
Edwards v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 310 F.R.D. 382 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “2d 1047 (citing 815 ILCS 380/1 et seq.). The court in Mydlach could not extend such a claim to the plaintiff since the vehicle in question had been purchased used.”
Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am., 813 N.E.2d 247 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “(1994)) (Magnuson-Moss Act) and the Illinois New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (815 ILCS 380/1 et seq. (West 2002)) seeking damages from defendant Hyundai Motor America for defendant’s breach of its written warranty and implied warranty of merchantability on the new car it sold…”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2018 IL App (2d) 170972 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred because (1) whether defendant had a reasonable opportunity to cure is a disputed issue of material fact, (2) the standards of the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (Act) (815 ILCS 380/1 et seq. (West 2016)) do not define…”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2018 IL App (2d) 170972 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred because (1) whether defendant had a reasonable opportunity to cure is a disputed issue of material fact, (2) the standards of the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (Act) ( 815 ILCS 380/1 et seq. (West 2016) ) do not define…”
Voelker, Daniel J. v. Porsche Cars North (7th Cir. 2003). “) and the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (815 ILCS 380/1, et seq.), a theory of fraudulent inducement, the Illinois Con- sumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/2, et seq.”
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc. (Ill. 2003). “(2002)), and the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (815 ILCS 380/1 et seq. (2002)) as examples of legislation which impose regulations on vehicle dealers that are not imposed on other retailers.”
Razor v. Hyundai Motor Am. (Ill. 2006). “Plaintiff also alleged that Hyundai had violated the Illinois New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (815 ILCS 380/1 et seq. (West 2000)). The case initially went to arbitration.”
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.
|