ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 380
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 380/3 (2026)

Failure of vehicle to conform; remedies; presumptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 380/3) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 1203)
    Sec. 3. Failure of vehicle to conform; remedies; presumptions.
    (a) If after a reasonable number of attempts the seller is unable to conform the new vehicle to any of its applicable express warranties, the manufacturer shall either provide the consumer with a new vehicle of like model line, if available, or otherwise a comparable motor vehicle as a replacement, or accept the return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the consumer the full purchase price or lease cost of the new vehicle, including all collateral charges, less a reasonable allowance for consumer use of the vehicle. For purposes of this Section, "collateral charges" does not include taxes paid by the purchaser on the initial purchase of the new vehicle. The retailer who initially sold the vehicle may file a claim for credit for taxes paid pursuant to the terms of Sections 6, 6a, 6b, and 6c of the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act. Should the vehicle be converted, modified or altered in a way other than the manufacturer's original design, the party which performed the conversion or modification shall be liable under the provisions of this Act, provided the part or parts causing the vehicle not to perform according to its warranty were altered or modified.
    (b) A presumption that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a new vehicle to its express warranties shall arise where, within the statutory warranty period,
        (1) the same nonconformity has been subject to repair
    
by the seller, its agents or authorized dealers during the statutory warranty period, 4 or more times, and such nonconformity continues to exist; or
        (2) the vehicle has been out of service by reason of
    
repair of nonconformities for a total of 30 or more business days during the statutory warranty period.
    (c) A reasonable allowance for consumer use of a vehicle is that amount directly attributable to the wear and tear incurred by the new vehicle as a result of its having been used prior to the first report of a nonconformity to the seller, and during any subsequent period in which it is not out of service by reason of repair.
    (d) The fact that a new vehicle's failure to conform to an express warranty is the result of abuse, neglect or unauthorized modifications or alterations is an affirmative defense to claims brought under this Act.
    (e) The statutory warranty period of a new vehicle shall be suspended for any period of time during which repair services are not available to the consumer because of a war, invasion or strike, or a fire, flood or other natural disaster.
    (f) Refunds made pursuant to this Act shall be made to the consumer, and lien holder if any exists, as their respective interests appear.
    (g) For the purposes of this Act, a manufacturer sells a new vehicle to a consumer when he provides that consumer with a replacement vehicle pursuant to subsection (a).
    (h) In no event shall the presumption herein provided apply against a manufacturer, his agent, distributor or dealer unless the manufacturer has received prior direct written notification from or on behalf of the consumer, and has an opportunity to correct the alleged defect.
(Source: P.A. 89-359, eff. 8-17-95; 89-375, eff. 8-18-95; 89-626, eff. 8-9-96.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2007–2020 · leading case: Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 875 N.E.2d 1047 (Ill. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 875 N.E.2d 1047 (Ill. 2007). “815 ILCS 380/3 (West 2006). The fact that our state legislature has provided this type of remedy to new-vehicle buyers does not persuade us that this type of relief is necessarily available to used-car buyers seeking relief under the Magnuson-Moss Act.”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2018 IL App (2d) 170972 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “Section 2-508(2) of the UCC ¶ 31 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment on counts I and II, because defendant failed to establish its satisfaction of section 2-508(2) of the UCC (810 ILCS 5/2-508(2) (West 2016)).”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2018 IL App (2d) 170972 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “However, section 3(b) of the Act provides guidance: "A presumption that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a new vehicle to its express warranties shall arise where, within the statutory warranty period, (1) the same nonconformity has been subject to…”
Buss v. Ford Motor Co., 2020 IL App (4th) 190386-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “Plaintiff’s complaint alleged: (1) defendants violated the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (Lemon Law Act) (815 ILCS 380/3(a) (West 2012)) (count I); (2) Ford breached an express warranty contained in the 2013 Model Year Ford Warranty Guide (Warranty Guide) (count II); (3) Ford…”
Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Ill. 2007). “815 ILCS 380/3 (West 2006). The fact that our state legislature has provided this type of remedy to new-vehicle buyers does not persuade us that this type of relief is necessarily available to used-car buyers seeking relief under the Magnuson-Moss Act.”
— 815 ILCS 380/3(a) — 1 case
Buss v. Ford Motor Co., 2020 IL App (4th) 190386-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “Plaintiff’s complaint alleged: (1) defendants violated the New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act (Lemon Law Act) (815 ILCS 380/3(a) (West 2012)) (count I); (2) Ford breached an express warranty contained in the 2013 Model Year Ford Warranty Guide (Warranty Guide) (count II); (3) Ford…”
— 815 ILCS 380/3(b) — 2 cases
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2018 IL App (2d) 170972 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “Section 2-508(2) of the UCC ¶ 31 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment on counts I and II, because defendant failed to establish its satisfaction of section 2-508(2) of the UCC (810 ILCS 5/2-508(2) (West 2016)).”
Accettura v. Vacationland, Inc., 2018 IL App (2d) 170972 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “However, section 3(b) of the Act provides guidance: "A presumption that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a new vehicle to its express warranties shall arise where, within the statutory warranty period, (1) the same nonconformity has been subject to…”
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.