November 12, 2007

Let’s Make a Deal – What the Deal Jacket Reveals

Car sales and leases are not sealed with a handshake these days. After hours of haggling, you’ll be told: “Sign here. And here. And here. And here.” Of course, you should get an exact copy of every document signed or initialed at the dealership before taking delivery of the vehicle. Too often, consumers are so excited to escape the high-pressure atmosphere, they hurriedly stuff their papers in the glove box and drive away. Meanwhile, the dealer is completing its own file.

Just what does the dealer keep for itself? Altogether, those items make up the Deal File, sometimes called the Deal Jacket. It contains internal documents that reflect the transaction, parts of which consumers never get to see. The file might include things like the credit application, a four-square page or other paper trail of promises, the ‘recap sheet’ or sales summary, vehicle invoice, finance papers, DMV information, repair history, inspections, trade-in calculations and separate agreements relating to after-market items. Even the front of this folder may have handwritten notes or other key information. Last but not least, the Deal File reveals how much profit was made on the transaction.

Fraud, if there is any, is likely to show up here. An experienced lawyer can peel back layers of deception by doing the math, applying intuition and noticing numbers that do not add up. It is sometimes shocking. Clearly car dealers are entitled to make a profit – that’s what they are in business to do. Yet, the Deal File can disclose profit centers that have nothing to do with the car it self, like a “theft protection” product that costs $37 and is rolled into the vehicle price at $1,400, or a service contract that costs the dealer $250 and is charged to the buyer at $2,500. At some point it becomes unconscionable. We even see instances where the Deal File shows a finance department is cheating its own sales personnel out of commissions just by moving extras from one line item to another.

When I started practicing consumer law in the 1980s, it was hard to get these internal documents. The defendants first denied they existed, and then cited bogus privacy concerns. Now we obtain this essential evidence routinely in the discovery process.

Last month, the California Court of Appeals issued a decision in a case called Lewis v Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. using evidence of the Deal Files to certify a class action for violation of the Rees Levering Act, an important California Truth-in-Lending law. At first the appellate court was going to leave the decision unpublished. We, and a number of other consumer advocates, urged the court to publish the case. The court agreed. Among other things, the case clarifies the evidentiary value of “Deal Files” as standard documents in the automotive industry and recognizes that vehicle transactions “can be evaluated through the deal jacket” for violation of consumer protection laws.

April 12, 2007

Is My Car a Lemon?

Is my car a Lemon?” This is a question we hear many times every week. The answer is determined car by car, case by case, r/o by r/o. What is an r/o? Those are the repair orders you get from the service department, and they provide the paper trail of your frustration. Repair orders, along with purchase and warranty documents, are important evidence in every Lemon Law case, and often hold the answer to a consumer's last exasperated gasp: How much is enough?

The California Lemon Law is basically a rule of reason. Before you can claim a refund or replacement, you must give the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the car or truck. The manufacturer’s opportunity to repair includes all authorized service dealers in this state, thanks to a landmark case we handled many years ago called Ibrahim v Ford Motor Company. But what is reasonable? Or rather, what is unreasonable? Just how much is enough? The answer depends on many factors: how many days the car or truck has been in the repair shop, how many times it was taken in for repairs, what the odometer reading was at each repair attempt, how many miles the car has been driven in all, what the terms of the express warranty are, and in particular, what seems to be the problem.

It makes sense that the California Lemon Law recognizes a difference between defective brakes and poor radio reception. If the defect is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, even two repair attempts is presumed to be a reasonable opportunity to repair, if certain other conditions are met. Other substantial defects prompt a finding of unreasonableness after four repairs. General poor quality of a vehicle can also trigger the Lemon Law, such as when the car is in for 30 days or more for a variety of defects within the first year and a half, or 18,000 miles of use.

You can start answering the question “How much is enough?” yourself by digging out your complete set of r/o’s. If you think even one is missing, return to the servicing dealer and ask for a printout of the complete warranty history. Years ago, these were hard to get, but now the complete history should be readily available on a single computer printout. It is important to save every repair order, and it is equally important to get them written up in the first place. If you are taking your car in over and over again for the same repair, don’t let the dealer get away with refusing to write up an r/o. Get some documentation of your complaint every time you take the car in for service of any kind.

Once you have a complete set of repair documents, put them in chronological order. We can help you list the dates you took the car in and count the number of days before you picked it up; along with the date, we list the odometer reading; we list every condition or concern you mentioned and what was worked on, even if these things do not seem connected at first. This repair chronology will begin to provide an objective picture of your experience with the car. Ask yourself whether the defects make you feel less safe in the vehicle, and whether you feel they have substantially impaired the car’s use or value to you. After 25 years of handling Lemon Law claims, we investigate each case on its own particular facts, and these are questions we will be asking when you visit our law office to ask: “How much is enough?”

April 1, 2007

Extended Warranties on Most Products Are a Bad Buy

Consumer Reports current newsletter reports that extended warranties on electronic products such as televisions, audio equipment and cameras are a bad buy. One tip off that the service contracts are overpriced is that retailers typically pocket 50% of the purchase price. Buying these products means betting on three unevents happening under the right circumstances: 1) the product breaks during the first three or four years of ownership (unlikely because most products don't break down that time period), 2) that the product will break after the manufacturer's warranty has expired, which is unlikely, and 3) the cost of repair will exceed the cost of the warranty. Consumer Reports surveys show that repair costs are not much higher than warranty costs.

March 18, 2007

California Lemon Law Covers Almost All Cars, Trucks, Motorhomes, and Even Pianos and Computers

That the California Lemon Law covers cars and trucks has become common knowledge. What is less known,however, is that the law covers boats, trailers, motorhomes, computers, and motorcycles. In fact, the law covers just about all items bought primarily for personal,family or household use. Kemnitzer, Anderson, Barron & Ogilvie LLP has represented buyers of of defective personal computers and personal watercraft (“Jet Skis”). A KABO attorney represented the owner of a defective Steinway piano. Business vehicles that weigh less than 10,000 lb. are also covered by the California Lemon Law as long as the owner has no more than five registered vehicles (thus excluding fleet owners).

July 1, 2006

Auto Dealer Loan Packing Banned by Car Buyers of Rights

Under the new Car Buyers Bill of Rights, dealers cannot misrepresent the cost of after-market items, such as service contracts, surface protection, debt cancellation insurance (GAP protection), and theft protection products. Some dealers in the past falsely told buyers theft protection cost only, say, $3/month, when really the cost was $35/month. The dealer hid the true cost in what the dealer said would be the monthly payment on the loan. This practice is known as loan packing. To guard against loan packing, dealers have to set out specifically the cost of each after market item in writing, such as theft protection.