(a) It is presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties if:
(1) The same nonconformity has been presented for repair to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer four or more times but the same nonconformity continues to exist; or
(2) The vehicle was out of service to the consumer during or while awaiting repair of the nonconformity or a series of nonconformities for a cumulative total of 20 or more business days during any 12-month period of the warranty,
provided that the consumer has notified the manufacturer directly in writing of the existence of the nonconformity or series of nonconformities and allowed the manufacturer a reasonable period, not to exceed 15 calendar days, in which to correct the nonconformity or series of nonconformities. The manufacturer must clearly and conspicuously disclose to the consumer in the warranty or owners manual that written notification of a nonconformity is required before a consumer may be eligible for a refund or replacement of the vehicle and the manufacturer shall include in the warranty or owners manual the name and address where the written notification may be sent. Provided, further, that notice to the manufacturer shall not be required if the manufacturer fails to make the disclosures provided herein.
(b) The consumer may prove that a defect or condition substantially impairs the value of the motor vehicle to the consumer in a manner other than that set forth in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) The term of an express warranty, the one-year period, and the 20-day period shall be extended by any period of time during which repair services are not available to the consumer because of war, strike, or natural disaster. (1987, c. 385.)
Notes of Decisions
Taylor v. Volvo North Am. Corp., 451 S.E.2d 618 (N.C. 1994).
· cites it 3× “” N.C.G.S. § 20-351.5(a)(1). “A consumer injured by reason of any violation of [this Act] may bring a civil action against the manufacturer .”
Evans v. Forest River, Inc. (W.D.N.C. 2020).
· cites it 7× “The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the fact that the manufacturer actually received the notice proved that “there is no genuine issue of fact as to the sufficiency of plaintiff's notice of the nonconformity under N.C.G.S. § 20-351.5.” Id. at 27. Defendant here also…”
Reinbold v. AGCO Corp. (E.D. Mo. 2023).
· cites it 2× “”); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 20-351.5 (“The manufacturer must clearly and conspicuously disclose to the consumer in the warranty or owners manual that written notification of a nonconformity is required .”
Taylor v. Volvo North Am. Corp., 421 S.E.2d 617 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “” G.S. § 20-351.5(a). By bringing the automobile to the dealer at least four times regarding the same nonconformity, plaintiff here was entitled to the statutory presumption that a reasonable number of attempts had been undertaken to conform the car to the express warranties.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351.5(a) — 3 cases
Evans v. Forest River, Inc. (W.D.N.C. 2020).
“The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the fact that the manufacturer actually received the notice proved that “there is no genuine issue of fact as to the sufficiency of plaintiff's notice of the nonconformity under N.C.G.S. § 20-351.5.” Id. at 27. Defendant here also…”
Taylor v. Volvo North Am. Corp., 421 S.E.2d 617 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992).
“” G.S. § 20-351.5(a). By bringing the automobile to the dealer at least four times regarding the same nonconformity, plaintiff here was entitled to the statutory presumption that a reasonable number of attempts had been undertaken to conform the car to the express warranties.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351.5(a)(1) — 1 case
Taylor v. Volvo North Am. Corp., 451 S.E.2d 618 (N.C. 1994).
“” N.C.G.S. § 20-351.5(a)(1). “A consumer injured by reason of any violation of [this Act] may bring a civil action against the manufacturer .”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351.5(a)(2) — 1 case
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351.5(a)(l) — 1 case
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351.5(b) — 1 case
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.