646A.404
Consumer’s remedies; manufacturer’s affirmative defenses. (1) If the manufacturer or agents
or authorized dealers of the manufacturer are unable to conform the motor
vehicle to an applicable manufacturer’s express warranty by repairing or
correcting a defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, market
value or safety of the motor vehicle to the consumer after a reasonable number
of attempts, the manufacturer shall:
(a) Replace the
motor vehicle with a new motor vehicle; or
(b) Accept return
of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the consumer the full purchase
or lease price and collateral charges paid, less a reasonable allowance for the
consumer’s use of the motor vehicle. In lieu of refunding, as part of the
collateral charges paid, the cost of an aftermarket item purchased within 20
days after delivery of the motor vehicle, the manufacturer may remove the
aftermarket item from the motor vehicle, if the aftermarket item can be removed
from the motor vehicle without damage, and return the aftermarket item to the
consumer.
(2) Refunds must
be made to the consumer and lienholder, if any, as the interests of the
consumer and lienholder may appear.
(3)(a) As used in
this section, “reasonable allowance for the consumer’s use of the motor vehicle”
means:
(A) For a motor
vehicle that is not a motorcycle or a motor home, an amount of money equivalent
to the motor vehicle mileage as described in paragraph (b) of this subsection,
multiplied by the combined amount of the cash price or lease price of the motor
vehicle and the amount of any collateral charges paid by the consumer, and
divided by 120,000.
(B) For a
motorcycle, an amount of money equivalent to the motor vehicle mileage as
described in paragraph (b) of this subsection, multiplied by the combined
amount of the cash price or lease price of the motorcycle and the amount of any
collateral charges paid by the consumer, and divided by 25,000.
(C) For a motor
home, an amount of money equivalent to the motor vehicle mileage as described
in paragraph (b) of this subsection, multiplied by the combined amount of the
cash price or lease price of the motor home and the amount of any collateral
charges paid by the consumer, and divided by 90,000.
(b) The motor
vehicle mileage for the purposes of the calculation described in paragraph (a)
of this subsection is the motor vehicle’s mileage at the time the manufacturer
takes an action described in subsection (1) of this section, less 10 miles for
mileage that the motor vehicle traveled during any period in which the consumer
did not have use of the motor vehicle because the manufacturer or an agent or
authorized dealer of the manufacturer was repairing the motor vehicle.
(4) It is an
affirmative defense to a claim under ORS 646A.400 to 646A.418 that:
(a) An alleged
nonconformity does not substantially impair such use, market value or safety;
or
(b) A nonconformity
is the result of abuse, neglect or unauthorized modifications or alterations of
the motor vehicle. [Formerly 646.335; 2009 c.448 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case:
Liles v. Damon Corp., 198 P.3d 926 (Or. 2008).
Liles v. Damon Corp., 198 P.3d 926 (Or. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 646A.404(1) describes the remedy that is available to a consumer: “If the manufacturer or its agents or authorized dealers are unable to conform the motor vehicle to any applicable manufacturer’s express warranty by repairing or correcting any defect or condition that…”
Roblin v. Newmar Corp. (D. Or. 2019).
· cites it 13× “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No.”
Robert Roblin v. Newmar Corp. (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(1). The district court correctly held that the statute made Newmar responsible for conforming the vehicle to Freightliner’s express warranties, not simply its own.”
Diemert (D. Or. 2026).
“ORS 646A.404(1). Consumer protection statutes like the OLL “are ‘construed liberally’ to effectuate their remedial purposes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(1) — 4 cases
Liles v. Damon Corp., 198 P.3d 926 (Or. 2008).
“” ORS 646A.404(1) describes the remedy that is available to a consumer: “If the manufacturer or its agents or authorized dealers are unable to conform the motor vehicle to any applicable manufacturer’s express warranty by repairing or correcting any defect or condition that…”
Roblin v. Newmar Corp. (D. Or. 2019).
“” Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No.”
Robert Roblin v. Newmar Corp. (9th Cir. 2021).
“Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(1). The district court correctly held that the statute made Newmar responsible for conforming the vehicle to Freightliner’s express warranties, not simply its own.”
Diemert (D. Or. 2026).
“ORS 646A.404(1). Consumer protection statutes like the OLL “are ‘construed liberally’ to effectuate their remedial purposes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(1)(a) — 1 case
Robert Roblin v. Newmar Corp. (9th Cir. 2021).
“Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(1). The district court correctly held that the statute made Newmar responsible for conforming the vehicle to Freightliner’s express warranties, not simply its own.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(4)(a) — 1 case
Roblin v. Newmar Corp. (D. Or. 2019).
“” Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(4)(b) — 1 case
Roblin v. Newmar Corp. (D. Or. 2019).
“” Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.404(l)(a) — 1 case
Liles v. Damon Corp., 198 P.3d 926 (Or. 2008).
“” ORS 646A.404(1) describes the remedy that is available to a consumer: “If the manufacturer or its agents or authorized dealers are unable to conform the motor vehicle to any applicable manufacturer’s express warranty by repairing or correcting any defect or condition that…”
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.