Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 7N

Voiding contracts of sale

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 7N. Notwithstanding any disclaimer of warranty, a motor vehicle contract of sale may be voided by the buyer if the motor vehicle fails to pass, within seven days from the date of such sale, the periodic staggered inspection at an inspection station licensed pursuant to section seven W; provided, that the defects which are the reasons for the failure to issue a certificate of inspection were not caused by the abusive or negligent operation of the motor vehicle or by damage resulting from an accident or collision occurring after the date of the sale; and provided, further, that the cost of repairs necessary to permit the issuance of a certificate of inspection exceeds ten per cent of the purchase price of the motor vehicle.

In order to void a motor vehicle sale under this section the buyer shall, within fourteen days from the date of sale, notify the seller of his intention to do so, deliver the motor vehicle to the seller, provide the seller with a written statement signed by an authorized agent of such inspection station stating the reasons why the motor vehicle failed to pass the safety or combined safety and emissions inspection and an estimate of the cost of necessary repairs. The buyer shall be entitled to a refund of his purchase price unless the buyer and seller agree in writing that the seller may make the necessary repairs at his own cost and expense within a reasonable period of time thereafter. This section shall apply only to motor vehicles purchased for the immediate personal or family use of the buyer.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: Gliottone v. Ford Motor Co.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gliottone v. Ford Motor Co. (2019) massappct · cites it 10× “*704 This case requires us to decide whether a plaintiff suing under the Massachusetts Lemon Law, G. L. c. 90, § 7N 1/2, must introduce expert testimony to prove that the subject vehicle did not comply with the applicable express or implied warranties.”

In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation (2004) med “” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 7N 1/2 (7). The court in Latino interpreted this provision to permit the arbitration award to serve as the "statutorily designated equivalent of a [chapter] 93A demand letter” when the manufacturer did not provide the required relief.”

Shaw v. Rodman Ford Truck Center, Inc. (1985) massappct “Count one was for breach of contract; count two was for fraud; count three alleged a violation of G. L. c. 90, § 7N, as appearing in St. 1979, c.”

Schultz v. Subaru of America, Inc. (1990) mass · cites it 2× “The defendants did not accept the tender, and the plaintiff requested State-certified “new car” arbitration pursuant to G. L. c. 90, § 7N*/i (6) (1988 ed.). After a hearing, an arbitrator directed the defendants to refund the plaintiff $11,165.”

Heintz v. Malvone (1980) massdistctapp · cites it 10× “The basis for the claim is rested on the provisions of M.G.L.c.90, § 7N 2 in that the vehicle failed to pass the inspection referred to in the statute and that consequently the plaintiff voided the contract of sale.”

Ferreira v. Chrysler Group LLC (2014) mass “, as well as a violation of the Massachusetts Lemon Law, G. L. c. 90, § 7N 1/2. He also alleged that Somerset’s inability to repair the Jeep and its unspecified misrepresentations regarding the warranty and the vehicle constituted a breach of its warranty, and an unfair and…”

General Motors Corp. v. Blackburn (1988) mass “G. L. c. 90, § 7N*/2 (6). The arbitration was held on September 26, 1986, and the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Blackburns.”

Ludvigsen v. Town of Dedham (2000) massappct “140, requires that a class 2 licensee shall “demonstrate[] access to repair facilities sufficient to enable him to satisfy the warranty repair obligations” of G. L. c. 90, § 7N ¼ 4 ; in fact the plaintiff met this provision by contracting with a Dedham company to furnish repair…”

Latino v. Ford Motor Co. (1988) mass “The defendant then exercised its final repair opportunity, G. L. c. 90, § 7N 1 /2 (4), but was unable to conform the vehicle.”

Lindquist v. Garrett Auctioneers, Inc. (1999) massdistctapp · cites it 2× “This is an action pursuant to G.L.c. 90, §7N 1/4 (“Used Car Lemon Law”) to recover for a breach of statutory warranty by defendant Garrett Auctioneers, Inc.”

Crean v. Stoughton Motor Mart, Inc. (2005) massdistctapp “As there was no error of law in the trial judge’s ruling that Crean failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the‘van was returned to the Stoughton Motor Mart within five days of the expiration of its G.L.c. 90, §7N;rc mileage warranty, a finding that the…”

Stamas v. Lavelle (1993) massdistctapp “266, §92A, G.L.c. 90, §7N et seq., and G.L.c. 93A. The defendantfailed to file an answer, a default judgment was entered and damages were assessed in the amount of $19,728.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

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.