November 2016 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 262: Lemon Law

To access the article related to this test, please click here.
  
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


 

Test Sheet
 



  
Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. The Song-Beverly Act as construed by appellate courts restricts or eliminates many UCC common law and statutory defenses previously asserted by defendants in consumer warranty cases.


2. When a consumer good that is the subject of a SBA case is not a new motor vehicle, a civil penalty is available for a willful violation of the law.


3. In a SBA case involving consumer goods other than a new motor vehicle, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has an office in California.


4. In a SBA case involving a new motor vehicle, the added requirement of proof that the defect substantially impairs use, value, or safety can be proven without expert testimony.


5. In a SBA case involving a new motor vehicle, the requirement of proof that the plaintiff presented the vehicle for repair of the substantially impairing defect(s) cannot be proven unless a component part has been replaced.


6. The effect of a defect on driveability does not have to be considered as evidence bearing on whether a reasonable number of repair opportunities has been established in a new motor vehicle SBA case.


7. The lemon presumption can be used by a plaintiff in support of the pursuit of a nonwillful civil penalty.


8. In a SBA trial, the cause of a consumer good defect must be proven as an essential element of the prima facie case.


9. A breach of the implied warranty of merchantability in a SBA action can be proven even in the absence of at least two repair attempts.


10. In a SBA new motor vehicle case, the buyer can recover for the emotional distress an objective, reasonable new car buyer would be expected to have when the new car turns out to be a lemon.


11. Insurance premium fees are recoverable as incidental damages under controlling appellate authority.


12. Recoverable damages in either a generic consumer goods case or in a new motor vehicle case are not limited to the purchase or lease price paid (less applicable offset), but also can include both incidental and consequential damages.


13. Unreasonable or unauthorized use of the consumer goods or new motor vehicle is no longer a valid affirmative defense under the SBA.


14. Either the 4 times or 30 downtime days in the first 18,000 miles options of the lemon presumption are raised in almost every trial of a new motor vehicle lemon law case.


15. The implied warranty of merchantability allows a purchaser who proves the consumer goods or new motor vehicle were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used, even if the purchaser did not give the defendant even one opportunity to repair.


16. Attorney’s fees are available to a successful plaintiff in a SBA case, even if the sales or lease contract had no attorney fee provision.


17. The existence of a manufacturer protocol for diagnosing that type of complaint is inadmissible on the issue of whether a new car buyer plaintiff has met the presentation element of the prima facie case.


18. In a certified lemon arbitration program proceeding, a plaintiff at his or her election may attempt to satisfy the presentation element by proof of one or more of the three lemon presumption parameters during the first 18 months or 18,000 miles.


19. Since civil penalties may only be awarded for willful violations in SBA cases in which the lemon presumption does not apply, the defendant is subject to that quasipunitive sanction in an amount up to the constitutional limit permissible in true punitive damages cases.


20. Lack of notice of breach of warranty directly to the manufacturer, not merely to the authorized service and repair facility, remains a viable common law defense in an action under the SBA.

 


Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.