Ayer v. Ford Motor Co.
503 N.W.2d 767, 200 Mich. App. 337 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Michigan's Lemon Law, the statutory presumption that a manufacturer has had a reasonable number of repair attempts is irrebuttable once the vehicle has been out of service for 30 or more days due to repairs. The manufacturer cannot rebut this presumption with excuses not explicitly listed in the statute, such as the unavailability of parts.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs purchased a new 1989 Ford pickup truck manufactured by Ford Motor Company.
- Shortly after the purchase, plaintiffs began experiencing problems with the truck's engine.
- Within the first three months of ownership, the truck was out of service for a total of forty-seven days due to various repairs.
- After the truck had been out of service for at least 25 days, plaintiffs provided written notification to Ford via certified mail, informing them of the need for repair as required by statute.
- Ford failed to cure the defect within the five business days allotted by the statute following notification and delivery of the vehicle for repair.
- Ford's failure to repair the vehicle within the five-day period was due to the unavailability of necessary parts.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed suit against Ford Motor Company and two dealerships in a Michigan trial court, alleging a claim under the Michigan Lemon Law against Ford.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary disposition against Ford, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact.
- The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition, finding plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Ford filed a motion for rehearing or reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
- Defendant Ford Motor Company, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeals of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Michigan Lemon Law permit a manufacturer to rebut the statutory presumption of a 'reasonable number of attempts' to repair a vehicle by presenting evidence of repair delays, such as parts unavailability, that are not among the statute's enumerated exceptions for extending time?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The Michigan Lemon Law does not permit a manufacturer to rebut the statutory presumption with excuses not explicitly listed in the statute. The presumption that a reasonable number of repair attempts have been made becomes conclusive once the statutory time periods are met. The court reasoned that the statute must be read as a whole. Subsection (1) defines 'a reasonable number of repairs' by referring directly to the conditions in subsection (3), which includes the 30-day out-of-service period. Furthermore, subsection (5) provides a specific, exhaustive list of events that can extend the time periods (war, invasion, strike, natural disaster). By explicitly listing these exceptions, the legislature implicitly excluded others. To allow unenumerated excuses, like the unavailability of parts, would defeat the statute's intent to place the risk and burden of such delays on the manufacturer, not the consumer. However, the court did clarify that any days a vehicle is out of service due to a consumer's refusal to authorize repairs do not count toward the statutory time periods.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the consumer-protection purpose of the Michigan Lemon Law by making the 30-day out-of-service presumption irrebuttable. It shifts the risk of supply chain issues and parts unavailability entirely onto the manufacturer, preventing them from using common operational delays as a defense. The ruling strengthens the position of consumers by creating a bright-line rule: once the time threshold is met and proper notice is given, the manufacturer's obligation to replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price is triggered, absent a catastrophic event specifically listed in the statute. This interpretation makes litigation under the law more straightforward, as it removes a major potential factual dispute about the 'reasonableness' of repair delays.
