Randal Schweiger bought a 2008 Kia Spectra EX from Kia Motors America, Inc., for his stepdaughter, April Kirichkow. The cost was $ 17,231, plus sales tax, fees, and other items. April had trouble starting the car. The Kia dealership replaced different parts of the motor several times, but was unable to fix the problem. Schweiger sought a refund under the state’s lemon law. When they could not agree on the amount, Schweiger filed a suit in a Wisconsin state court against Kia. From a judgment in Schweiger’s favor, Kia appealed.
(a) Kia offered a refund of $ 3,306.24. Should this offer bar Schweiger’s claim for a refund? Why or why not?
(b) Schweiger claimed that Kia’s offer did not include the $ 1,301 cost of a service contract. Kia argued that the “payoff to the lender” of $ 13,060.16, which Schweiger agreed was the correct amount, “would by definition refund the cost of the service contract.” The court found “no logical basis” for this argument. Is it ethical for a party to argue a position for which there is no logical basis? Discuss.