When she was 17 years old, Cathy Bishop’s parents signed a purchase contract for a new Hyundai automobile on which she made all payments. She was the primary driver of the vehicle, and while it was still under warranty, a manufacturing defect resulted in a fire that damaged it beyond reasonable repair. Although Hyundai was promptly notified and soon acknowledged responsibility for the fire, offers of replacement vehicles were rejected because they were not equivalent to the one destroyed, and monetary offers were rejected as being below its actual value. After Hyundai stated its final offer would expire on June 3, 1992 (some six months after negotiations began), Bishop sued for reimbursement of the vehicle’s purchase price, as well as incidental and general damages, asking they be trebled by way of penalty for Hyundai’s willful violation of the California “lemon law.”
At trial, Bishop testified at length to her emotional distress resulting from the unavailability of her car upon which she had relied to attend college classes and from her inability to procure new transportation, due in part because of her obligation to make the car payments to the lender. The jury awarded Bishop the value of her car, or $8,312.18, plus damages for “loss of use” in the amount of $17,223, incidental damages of $1,444, and emotional distress damages of $5,000. The jury found Hyundai’s lemon law violation to be willful, making its total award $95,937.54. Bishop was awarded more than $50,000 in costs and attorney fees. Discuss all of the damage awards other than the lemon law awards and determine whether they are proper damages under the UCC. [Bishop v Hyundai Motor America, 44 Cal App 4th 750, 52 Cal Rptr 2d 134]