Printer Friendly

JURY FINDS GENERAL MOTORS WILLFULLY BREAKS THE LEMON LAW

 JURY FINDS GENERAL MOTORS WILLFULLY BREAKS THE LEMON LAW
 GLENDALE, Calif., July 27 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is being issued by Taylor & Hodges:
 A Norwalk, Calif., Superior Court jury has unanimously found that General Motors (GM) (NYSE: GM) willfully violated the rights of Rafael and Maria Michel under California's "Lemon Law." The Michels were represented by the Glendale law firm of Taylor and Hodges.
 The jury awarded Mr. and Mrs. Michel a total of $33,000, of which $22,000 was assessed as a civil penalty against the "Big 3" manufacturer (GM) for its repeated refusal to refund the Michels their money even after their vehicle had been out of service for repairs for a total of 182 days (about six months) in the first 10 months of ownership.
 The 1989 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer was purchased new from Gateway Chevrolet of La Mirada, Calif. It displayed several remarkable defects. Ironically, the Michels had traded in their Toyota Corolla in order to get into the larger GM Blazer only to find themselves driving a Toyota Corolla rental car while they waited for the dealer to repair the numerous defects on their new Chevy Blazer.
 The salesman at Gateway represented that the Chevy Blazer had factory air conditioning. In fact, it had no air conditioning at all. He also said that the paint only needed buffing because it had sat on the lot so long, but finally, after much time and denial, the dealer acknowledged that just buffing the paint could not handle the paint and body defects, including bubbling, blisters and delamination. The dealer-installed air conditioner was installed in such a way that it caused the car to stall at idle. Further, the Blazer was sold with no dipstick, and with an engine that had no hole to put a dipstick into. Also, while the vehicle was in for paint and body repair, according to the Gateway Chevrolet service representative, the car doors were left unlocked and the seats were stolen.
 To add insult to injury, the rental car provided to the Michels by Gateway Chevrolet was not paid for by Gateway, and Mr. and Mrs. Michel were sued by the rental company, and faced a judgment for the bill. The small claims court judgment was appealed successfully.
 Glendale Trial Attorney Al Hodges stated, "No doubt the public and any reasonable person would be appalled by the facts of this case in regards to the GM failure to give the consumer satisfaction. Unfortunately, we find this to be typical in the case of GM and is yet another example of GM's corporate policies as practiced on the dealer level: continually designed to wear the consumer down. The result is a customer-relations disaster."
 -0- 7/27/92 R
 /CONTACT: Richard McKinley of Taylor & Hodges, 818-244-3905/
 (GM) CO: General Motors ST: California IN: AUT SU:


BP-EH -- LA009 -- 3589 07/27/92 14:21 EDT
COPYRIGHT 1992 PR Newswire Association LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1992 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:PR Newswire
Date:Jul 27, 1992
Words:480
Previous Article:SOUTHWESTERN BELL BEGINS SELLING FRAME RELAY IN KANSAS; FIRST OFFERING IN SOUTHWESTERN BELL'S FIVE-STATE REGION
Next Article:FIFTH INTERNATIONAL USER CONFERENCE: A WORLD CLASS SUCCESS
Topics:


Related Articles
JURY FINDS GENERAL MOTORS WILLFULLY BREAKS THE LEMON LAW
ATTORNEYS DAVID WINTER AND STEPHEN LEUCHTMAN WIN PERSONAL INJURY CASE AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
GENERAL MOTORS BRAKE LININGS CONTRIBUTED TO ASBESTOS DISEASE
GM SETTLES WITH WASHINGTON STATE OVER 'LEMONS'
General Motors Issues Statement Regarding the Hardy Case
Attorney Representing Plaintiffs Against Chrysler Seeks to Remind Public of Facts Behind Death of 6-Year-Old Boy
KIA CARS SOUR BUYERS, STUDY SHOWS.
Appeals Court Upholds Lemon Law Rights of Consumers With Leased Vehicles.
Lemon-aid.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters