Issue for Busniess Law

Case Study

Issue

        The issue in this case is that Gordon Chevrolet, INC (defendants)is not respecting their contract and warranty they set out for Richard A. Stanhope & Michelle M. Hawkins(plaintiffs). When they were selling the vehicle to their client they assured the client that everything was running fine and that the drivetrain and the whole car had been inspected thoroughly by their certified mechanics. A year later, the client found out after some 9,473 miles that the car was making some loud noise from the engine so he took it to Victor George, Chevrolet, Inc. Only to find out that the engine failed due to some starvation of oil. The plaintiffs went back to request that Gordon Chevrolet, INC either repair his vehicle free of charge as stated it would be covered in the warranty or else refund the $25,000 that he paid to purchase the car. The defendant denied this as they said it was the plaintiffs’ fault that the engine starved from oil and that it would not be covered under the warranty but at the plaintiffs’ expense.

Rule

Under Michigan Law, these are the rules (law) that have been breached within this case.

• Breach of warranties 
• Revocation of Acceptance 
• Breach of Obligations of Good Faith 
• Liability Under Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act 
• Violation of MCLA 257.1401, ET SEQ (Michigan Lemon Law) Defendant- Manufacturer

Analysis

• Breach of warranties: Defendants expressed that the vehicle came with a warranty. This was both in oral and written form.  This was a breach, as the defendants did not do adequate or proper inspection of the vehicle as it stated before selling the car to the plaintiffs. The vehicle wasn’t fit for its intended use. Express & implied warranties were breached. 
• Revocation of Acceptance:  The defendants refused to honor the plaintiffs’ plea to repair the car under warranty or refund his money as it was stated at the time of purchase.  
• Breach of Obligations of Good Faith: The defendants had the duty to act in good faith, by honoring the warranty, refunding the plaintiff or trying to help the plaintiffs solve the issues with his car in a civil matter instead of bringing it to court. Which costs a lot more then to just get done with the repairs or refund. 
• Liability Under Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act ( 15 USC SEC. 2301 ET SEQ):  Despite repeated efforts to get the defendants to remedy the reasonable terms and conditions which they imposed to the plaintiffs at the time of sale they refused to remedy it, within that specific timeframe with no expense to the plaintiffs.  
• Violation of MCLA 257.1401, ET SEQ (Michigan Lemon Law) Defendant- Manufacturer: The subject vehicle has been out of service because of failure and refusal to repair for more than thirty days for the same repair within one year of its delivery date to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have given reasonable notice and opportunity to cure as required by the statute, which the defendants still refused to refund or repair. 

Conclusion

My conclusion is that the plaintiffs would most likely win the case if they have all the valid proof that they did maintain the car well to the manufactures specification.  If they can present receipts of oil changes and maintenance that has undergone during the ownership of the vehicle it shouldn’t be a problem for the jury to go with the plaintiffs. This would show that he did do his duty to care for the vehicle and not neglect it like the defendant said. In return I also believe he should be awarded for consequential damages as going to court could had been evitable by simply just using the warranty of the vehicle.  The plaintiffs should be compensated for $37,000 for all the damages plus the attorney fees and court fees by the defendant for this case.