N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 20
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351 (2026)

Purpose

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 20 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This Article shall provide State and private remedies against motor vehicle manufacturers for persons injured by new motor vehicles failing to conform to express warranties. (1987, c. 385, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1991–2020 · leading case: Taylor v. Volvo North Am. Corp., 451 S.E.2d 618 (N.C. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Taylor v. Volvo North Am. Corp., 451 S.E.2d 618 (N.C. 1994). · cites it 12× “Taylor sued Volvo under the New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act (the Act), N.C.G.S. §§ 20-351 to 20-351.10 (1993) alleging that the vehicle failed to conform to its express warranty.”
Estridge v. Ford Motor Co., 401 S.E.2d 85 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 12× “The defendant’s *718 motion to dismiss was based on the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in that N.C.G.S. §§ 20-351 to 351.10 was not intended to apply retroactively.”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Kirkhart, 561 S.E.2d 276 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “On or about 19 April 1999, Kirkhart, as attorney for the Pleskaches, filed a complaint against DaimlerChrysler (“Plaintiff’) asserting that Plaintiff had violated the New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act (“Lemon Law Statute”), see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351 through § 20-351.”
Anders v. Hyundai Motor Am. Corp., 407 S.E.2d 618 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “, (“dealership”) and General Motors Acceptance Corporation (“GMAC”) pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 20-351 et seq., the New Motor Vehicles War *63 ranties Act (“New Vehicles Act”) and N.”
Buford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 451 S.E.2d 293 (N.C. 1994). · cites it 3× “This case arises out of plaintiffs’ purchase of a 1989 Chevrolet Suburban and requires us to interpret North Carolina’s New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act (hereinafter the “Lemon Law”), N.C.G.S. §§ 20-351 through -351.10 (1993), for the first time.”
Blankenship v. Town & Country Ford, Inc., 622 S.E.2d 638 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “We note that Taylor involved the Warranties Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351 , and a leased car, rather than Chapter 75 and an owned vehicle, as here.”
Stunzi v. Medlin Motors, Inc., 714 S.E.2d 770 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Our courts have commonly referred to North Carolina’s New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-351 through-351.11 as “the Lemon Law[.”
Hardison v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 738 S.E.2d 814 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “3, the remedy of repurchase of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is provided where: [T]he manufacturer is unable, after a reasonable number of attempts, to conform the motor vehicle to any express warranty by repairing or correcting, or arranging for the repair or…”
Halprin v. Ford Motor Co., 420 S.E.2d 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “§ 75-16 or, in the alternative, punitive damages.”
Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A., 738 S.E.2d 731 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “2d 85, 87 (1991), this Court refused to apply the North Carolina “Lemon Law” under the New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-351 to -351.10 (1990), to a plaintiff’s vehicle lease where “the rights and obligations involved in the plaintiffs claim [arose] out of…”
Eugene Tucker Builders v. Ford Motor Co., 622 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “By letter dated 7 March 2003 plaintiff informed defendant of his intention to pursue remedies under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20-351 et seq., the New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act.”
Fairchild v. Kubota Tractor Corp. (W.D.N.C. 2020). · cites it 5× “The Complaint contained the following claims: (1) Breach of New Motor Vehicles Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351 ; (2) Breach of Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ; (3) Breach of Express Warranty; (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose; and (5) Unfair and…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-351(3) — 1 case
Taylor v. Volvo North Am. Corp., 451 S.E.2d 618 (N.C. 1994). “Taylor sued Volvo under the New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act (the Act), N.C.G.S. §§ 20-351 to 20-351.10 (1993) alleging that the vehicle failed to conform to its express warranty.”
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.