Ii. [§ 12.5] Automotive Warranty Enforcement Act (Lemon Law)

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

II. [§ 12.5] AUTOMOTIVE WARRANTY ENFORCEMENT ACT (LEMON LAW)

John Smith purchased a new 2021 Isuzu Pickup Truck from Harris Isuzu, Inc. for $30,000 in cash. Within six months of delivery, Smith's truck repeatedly failed to start. During this period, Harris Isuzu, Inc. attempted unsuccessfully to repair the ignition system causing the truck to be out of service for forty days. One month before Harris's second attempt to repair the truck, Smith sent written notice to the manufacturer of his desire to obtain a refund of the purchase price of the truck unless Harris repaired the faulty ignition system. When the second repair attempt failed to correct the defect, Smith demanded a refund, which Harris refused. Smith sought recovery under Maryland's Lemon Law for the purchase price of the truck.

COMPLAINT

Automotive Warranty Enforcement Act

John Smith (hereinafter "Smith"), Plaintiff, by his attorneys Zala P. Getachew and Getachew & Getachew, P.A., sues George Harris Isuzu, Inc. (hereinafter "Harris"), Defendant, and states as follows:
1. Plaintiff Smith is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland.
2. Defendant Harris is a Maryland Corporation with its principal place of business in Baltimore City, Maryland. Harris is a dealer authorized to sell and service vehicles manufactured and distributed by Isuzu Motors, Inc.
3. On October 1, 2021, Smith purchased a new 2021 Isuzu Pick-Up Truck for the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) (hereinafter "Vehicle") from Defendant Harris. A copy of the Sales Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4. On November 15, 2021, Smith was unable to start the Vehicle after repeatedly turning the key to the ignition. Harris towed the Vehicle to the dealership and replaced the electronic ignition of the Vehicle. The Vehicle was returned to Smith on November 15, 2021.
5. On November 16, 2021, Smith gave written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested to Isuzu, Inc. of the Vehicle's failure to start.
6. On November 20, 2021, Smith was again unable to start the Vehicle after repeatedly turning the ignition key. The Vehicle was towed by Harris to the dealership for repairs. The Vehicle was returned to Smith on November 30, 2021.
7. At all times relevant hereto the above-described defects and repairs to Smith's Vehicle were within the warranties provided by Harris and within the first fifteen thousand (15,000) miles of the Vehicle's operation.
8. Said defects substantially impair the value of the Vehicle and have not been corrected by Harris in a reasonable number of attempts causing the Vehicle to be out of service for repair for a total of thirty (30) or more days during the warranty period.
9. On December 1, 2021, Smith tendered the return of the Vehicle and demanded in writing that Harris refund the purchase price of the Vehicle, which demand Harris refused.
10. In refusing without justification to refund the purchase price of the Vehicle, Harris acted in bad faith and has violated Smith's rights under §§ 14-1502 and 14-1504 of the Maryland Commercial Law Code.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Smith demands judgment Defendant

...