Question: 1 a According to Minnesota s lemon law what was Sipe

1. a. According to Minnesota’s lemon law, what was Sipe required to show in order to win his engine defect claim?
b. Why did Sipe lose his engine defect claim?
2. Why did Sipe lose his defective transmission claim?
3. Dieter and Hermes agreed to buy a new 1996 Dodge Ram pickup truck from Fascona Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge Trucks on December 12, 1995. They requested the installation of some after-market accessories—a tonneau cover, a bug shield, and rust proofing. When Dieter and Hermes returned to take delivery of the truck, they noticed it had been scratched during the installation of the accessories. The salesperson told them the scratches would be repaired. Four months later the dealership sent the truck to a body shop for repairs. After repair, Dieter and Hermes noticed swirl marks in the truck’s finish. Dieter then demanded that Frascona repurchase the truck. Eight months later Dieter and Hermes sued Chrysler Corporation under Wisconsin’s lemon law.
a. Make the argument that the lemon law does not apply to the facts of this case.
b. Decide the case. Explain.
On September 18, 2004, Paul Sipe purchased a motor home manufactured by Fleetwood Motor Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc. (“Fleetwood”), from Brambillas, Inc. (“Brambillas”), an authorized Fleetwood motor home dealer and repair facility located in Minnesota. Workhorse manufactured the motor home’s chassis, which included the motor home’s supporting frame, engine, transmission, and certain electrical components. Sipe purchased the motor home for $ 105,616.75, and Brambillas delivered it to Sipe on October 21, 2004. Sipe received an owner’s manual with the motor home that contained Workhorse’s limited warranty for the chassis.

View Solution:

Sale on SolutionInn
  • CreatedOctober 02, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question