“Merchantability” is one of those legal terms-of-art that defies precise definition. Courts ruling on implied warranty of merchantability claims generally frame the question as whether the product was “reasonably fit for its intended purpose.” But what any given jury will find to be “reasonable” is anyone’s guess. So better for the defendant that the case never get to the jury. I think Chrysler might agree. Continue reading
Tag Archives: dispute
Recently, we’ve been discussing the merits of binding arbitration as a means of resolving consumer disputes. (See here and here.) Lori Crandell, COO of New Home Warranty Program of Manitoba, Inc., finds that the process works well when properly tailored to the nature of the dispute. Lori writes: Continue reading
Want a better relationship with your customers? Want to spend less time and money dealing with frustrated or irate customers? Want more customers to walk out of the store with your extended warranty or service plan? There’s a sure fire way to make these things happen, plain and simple. Continue reading
It is quickly moving beyond dispute that federal consumer protection law favors binding arbitration over litigation. A North Carolina federal trial court recently joined two federal appellate courts in ruling that the federal warranty law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, does not ban binding arbitration provisions in consumer product warranties. This is good news for consumer product manufacturers, and better news for consumers if more companies turn to binding arbitration.
In a recent post, we commented on Hyundai’s decision to abandon the arbitration clause in its new vehicle limited warranty. A reader pointed out that, generally, in consumer-dispute arbitration only the warrantor is bound by the award. The reader is correct that where a consumer protection statute or lemon law includes a state-run mandatory arbitration procedure, it generally permits a consumer dissatisfied with an award to reject it and proceed to litigation.
A recent “victory” for the New York Times strikes a blow to consumers. By bullying Hyundai into abandoning arbitration to resolve warranty disputes, it robbed consumers of a fair and efficient alternative to costly, time-consuming, and economically inefficient litigation. Continue reading