The Rights of Vehicle Purchasers – The Lemon Law of Florida and The Sale of Goods Act of Trinidad and Tobago
AARON CHUNISINGH
Attorney-at-Law
Martin Anthony George & Company
BY: AARON CHUNISINGH
Introduction
In the year 2024, it has become more common than not, to own a vehicle in Trinidad and Tobago. The issue with purchasing a vehicle is that it can be very expensive. The average person has to save for months or even years to purchase a vehicle and many persons even take loans for up to seven (7) years from financial institutions in order to accomplish this life goal, thereby incurring a long-term debt. Based on the long-term nature of these obligations, one expects that a new vehicle when purchased, would be of a high quality and without defect stress or worry to the Purchaser. However, there are numerous occurrences where persons purchase vehicles which they soon find out, are plagued with mechanical issues and/or defects. In such cases, the question then arises if there are any steps a purchaser can take to get recourse.
In Trinidad and Tobago, there is no statute which specifically governs the remedies available to the purchaser of a defective vehicle. Contrastingly, in the state of Florida, in the United States of America the law specifically provides for recourse in such cases, by the implementation of the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, commonly referred to as “The Lemon Law”. This article will examine Florida’s Lemon Law and compare same to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago and make recommendations for improvement of our Legislative infrastructure in T&T in this regard.
Lemon Law
The “Lemon Law” is a prescribed set of rules in the State of Florida outlined by Chapter 681 of the Florida Statutes, which allows for those who purchase a new vehicle and later find out that it is defective, to have recourse through arbitration. The rules are specific in terms of which vehicles are covered and the process of obtaining the said recourse.
The Lemon Law applies to a new vehicle purchased that has shown a defect within 24 months of being delivered to the purchaser. The vehicle must have a defect which substantially impairs the use, value or safety; must have undergone at least three (3) attempts to repair the said defect and must have been out of the use of the purchaser for the purpose of repairing the said issue for a period of fifteen (15) days or more. Once these conditions are met, the purchaser may send a specified form to the manufacturer of the vehicle, who then has ten (10) days to repair and return the vehicle. Failure to do so, qualifies the purchaser to seek arbitration. Under the Lemon Law, purchasers of defective vehicles may be entitled to a replacement vehicle being provided or a full refund of the purchase price of the vehicle. This however is dependent on the specific defect or defects.
Applicable Laws in T&T to protect Purchasers of New Vehicles
There is a stark contrast between the Lemon Law and the law which protects the purchasers of vehicles in Trinidad and Tobago. In Trinidad and Tobago, there are no laws which specifically provide for the protection of persons who purchase vehicles. The only statute which deals with any such purchase is the Sale of Goods Act Ch. 82:30 (“the Act”) which governs the rules regarding the sale of goods in Trinidad and Tobago.
Section 2 of the Act defines a good as including “all chattels personal other than things in action and money; the term includes emblements, industrial growing crops, and things attached to or forming part of the land, which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.” In Maharaj v Sterling Services Ltd TT 2016 HC 150, it was accepted that vehicles are considered within the definition of goods pursuant to the said Sale of Goods Act.
Section 16(2) of the Act states that there is an implied condition on goods sold by a seller in the course of business that the said goods supplied under the contract be of merchantable quality except where – “(a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made; or (b) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal.”
Section 16(6) of the Act further states that goods of any kind are of merchantable quality within the meaning of subsection (2) if they are fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price if relevant, and all the other relevant circumstances.
Section 35 of the Act states that the buyer is not deemed to have accepted goods delivered to him unless he has a reasonable opportunity in which to inspect or examine the said goods to determine if they conform with the contract.
As the statute only refers to goods in general, we must look to case law to determine what qualifies as ‘merchantable quality’ in relation to vehicles. In Sterling Service (Battoo Bros.) Ltd v Danley Maharaj TT 2022 CA 48, Mendonca J.A., stated that the question is whether the motor vehicle as delivered, was fit for the purpose for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as is reasonable to expect having regard to the relevant considerations. In making a decision, the Honourable Court of Appeal took into consideration the description of the vehicle as new, the purchase price and the automotive brand. In agreeing with the trial Judge’s finding that the vehicle was not of merchantable quality, the Court of Appeal stated that it would not be reasonable to expect a person purchasing a vehicle of that type, description and price to expect the defects experienced. However, it must be noted that the Court of Appeal held that the purchaser waited ten (10) months before rejecting the vehicle, thereby relinquishing his right to reject it thereafter. The Court of Appeal was of the view that given the nature of the defects complained of, Mr. Danley Maharaj had more than ample time to make his position clear to Sterling Services, that he was rejecting the motor vehicle. The Court of Appeal thus held that by holding on to the vehicle for 10 months was unreasonably long to then say afterwards that you’re rejecting the vehicle. The problem with this, is that there’s no certainty in relation to a fixed period of time and what one Court may find to be an unreasonably long time to hold on to a vehicle before rejecting it, another Court may find to be justifiable. Florida’s Lemon Law, obviates this type of uncertainty by providing fixed timelines for claims. Legislation such as that, would be of tremendous benefit to purchasers of vehicles in Trinidad & Tobago.
In Sterling Service v Danley Maharaj (supra), the UK Case of Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd [1987] 2 WLR 353 was heavily discussed. In Roger v Parish (supra), the interpretation of the sections 14(2) and 14(6) of the Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, identical to sections 16(2) and 16(6) of the Act, were examined in relation to the merchantable quality of a Range Rover vehicle. In that case the Court looked at the whole issue with direct reference to the words of section 14(6) and held that, “Starting with the purpose for which “goods of that kind” are commonly bought, one would include in respect of any passenger vehicle not merely the buyer’s purpose of driving the car from one place to another but of doing so with the appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and reliability and, one may add, of pride in the vehicle’s outward and interior appearance.”
The cases therefore highlight that the Courts take wide considerations in determining whether a vehicle purchased was of merchantable quality and in turn, fit for the purpose(s) for which vehicles are commonly purchased.
Analysis
In light of the aforementioned, one observes that the state of Florida has implemented statute by virtue of the Lemon Law which aims to specifically protect the rights of purchasers of vehicles. However, it must be noted that the Lemon Law’s reach is limited as its only applies to vehicles that meet a certain criterion, that being those purchased and delivered to the purchaser within twenty-four (24) months. Therefore, the Lemon Law mainly covers what could be termed as new vehicles. The Lemon Law does not cover vehicles older than two (2) years. Indeed the 24-month period does grant a purchaser of a vehicle an extended period of time in which they can be protected from any defects.
In comparison, Trinidad and Tobago has no specific legislation which protects purchasers of vehicles in this way. The Sale of Goods Act Ch. 82:30 does not place a time limit on what vehicles are protected, and thus does not only apply to new vehicles. However, the age of a vehicle when purchased, would be a factor for consideration in the determination of whether a vehicle is of merchantable quality. The case law indicates that the Courts do set time limits in making such a decision. However, it also indicates that there can be a subjective aspect to the effect of these time limits on the recourse available to the purchaser. In Sterling Service v Danley Maharaj (supra), the Trial Judge originally found that the purchaser was entitled to reject the vehicle after a ten (10) month lapse of time. However, this decision was overturned at the Court of Appeal which held that the period of ten (10) months was more than long enough for the purpose of the purchaser examining the vehicle for conformity with the contract and to reject it before such time, if it was not. The Court of Appeal thus felt, that by him holding on to it for as long as ten months without previously rejecting it, meant that he had implicitly waived his right to reject the vehicle thereafter. This uncertainty with the period of time during which recourse is available to the purchaser of a defective vehicle is another reason for a prescribed set of rules to be incorporated, such as is contained in Florida’s Lemon Law.
Furthermore, the Lemon Law provides an aggrieved purchaser with steps that can be taken to obtain relief, without taking the issue to the Courts. These steps include attempts to get the defect fixed and correspondence with the manufacturer of the vehicle. Thus, the steps included in the process of getting recourse under the Lemon Law can be undergone fairly quickly as compared to the initiation of legal action against the manufacturer. This is especially important as it protects the purchaser from being without a vehicle for a long period of time, from incurring alternative transport fees where the vehicle is out of service and also from incurring legal fees. Where all the steps have been taken and the manufacturer refuses to refund the purchaser or replace the defective vehicle, the purchaser becomes qualified to seek arbitration.
In Trinidad and Tobago, there is no legislation that specifically prescribes rules whereby purchasers of defective vehicles can get recourse in a manner similar to the Lemon Law. However, vehicles fall under what is classed as a ‘good’ within the Act and thus requires any vehicle sold to be of ‘merchantable quality’, meaning that they are fit for the purpose for which vehicles are commonly bought. This is the issue which arises with the present recourse available to a purchaser of a defective vehicle in Trinidad and Tobago. Such a person is forced to take legal action in order to have the defect resolved. As is known, the judicial process can be lengthy, costly and stressful. Such an aggrieved party could be left for extended periods of time without a solution and the average person cannot always afford to fight a lengthy legal battle with prominent vehicle dealers. Additionally, discussions with dealers regarding defects are usually met with long waiting times, costs and low-ball offers for reimbursement.
Therein lies the reasons for the consideration of the implementation of legislation similar to the Lemon Law in Trinidad and Tobago. Such a system that promotes the ‘out of Court’ settlement of issues regarding the purchase of defective vehicles will be beneficial to both purchasers and the Courts alike. Not only will purchasers seeking recourse in such cases save tremendous amounts of time and money in obtaining what is fair and due to them, but precious judicial time will also be saved in dealing with matters of that kind. As is well known, one of the main goals of the legal profession is and will always be to save judicial time as is required by Rule 1.1 of the Civil Proceedings Rules 1998, the Overriding Objective. In pursuance of this is it paramount that new approaches and methods be taken to ease the burden on the Courts. Mirroring the Lemon Law is an opportunity for Trinidad and Tobago to incorporate rules which will allow this specific issue to be dealt with, without having to take it before a Court.
Conclusion
As time goes by and the Courts of Trinidad and Tobago continue to grow a backlog of cases and matters, it is our duty as legal professionals to put forward and champion the incorporation of out of Court methods of dispute resolution. Part of this process should include looking elsewhere to possibly learn ways in which this can be done. One such learning opportunity is surely the Lemon Law of Florida that helps to protect the rights of purchasers of new vehicles with defects. If something similar can be put in place locally, it would definitely be a step in the right direction so that the rights of such purchasers will also be protected in a more efficient, timely and cost-effective manner.
© 2024 MARTIN ANTHONY GEORGE & CO
The Rights of Vehicle Purchasers – The Lemon Law of Florida and The Sale of Goods Act of Trinidad and Tobago