Go Back   Montana Owners Club - Keystone Montana 5th Wheel Forum > GENERAL DISCUSSIONS > General Discussions about our Montanas
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-16-2019, 08:51 AM   #1
bshgto
Montana Fan
 
bshgto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Hagerstown
Posts: 419
M.O.C. #16013
Hammer Time

From another Forum board. May be this will shake them up. One case will lead to another and snow ball after lawyers get wind of it.


Recent court cases have fallen on the side of the consumer.

IL Supreme Court: Buyers of defective RV not required to allow dealer to fix it before demanding refund

https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories...manding-refund

Defendant Vacationland Inc. argued that plaintiffs Kimberly Accettura and Adam Wozniak had not allowed it adequate time to fix the recreational vehicle’s defects before revoking their acceptance of the trailer. After succeeding at the circuit and appellate levels, Vacationland lost its argument before the Supreme Court on Sept. 19.

Accettura and Wozniak purchased the RV new from Vacationland in April 2014. That June, they noticed a window leaked, and Vacationland offered to repair the issue at no charge. A month later, leaking windows during a rainstorm caused extensive damage inside the RV, including electrical failure. Vacationland told the couple it could not repair the defect itself and would have to send the RV back to the manufacturer.

Neither Vacationland nor the manufacturer would give the couple an estimate of how long the repairs would take, and the RV sat at the dealership for more than two weeks without being picked up by the manufacturer. Nearly three weeks after returning the vehicle for repairs, Accettura and Wozniak called Vacationland and “verbally revoked acceptance of the RV.”

About six weeks later, Vacationland called the couple and told them the repairs were complete and they could pick up the vehicle. The pair responded with a letter from their attorney confirming they had revoked their acceptance of the RV.

At issue before the court was whether the revocation was allowed under the Uniform Commercial Code. The code states that a buyer may “revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value” under two conditions – one, if the buyer knew the item was defective but expected it to be repaired, and it was not repaired in a reasonable amount of time; or two, if the buyer did not know of the defect at the time of purchase.

While Vacationland conceded that the buyers did not know the RV was defective when they purchased it, it claimed the statute allows that the dealership should have time to address the defect. The buyers, meanwhile, argued that the ability to repair a defect applies only to the first condition of the statute and not the second.

“We agree with [the plaintiffs’] interpretation,” Justice Rita B. Garman wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion. “We find this language plain and … subsection (1)(b) [of the UCC} does not require that a buyer give the seller an opportunity to cure.”
__________________
__________________
2018.5 3791 Rear Den Montana, on the lake
Electric Brakes ..... Disk Brakes, it`s the only way
2018 F350 Ford 6.7 Dually 4:10`s w/bags Top Dog (payload 5595 lbs)
Andersen Ultimate TrailAir Pin Mor/Ryde SRE 4000 X Factors.... real smooth ride
bshgto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 11:13 AM   #2
PeteandJoan
Montana Fan
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Round Rock
Posts: 354
M.O.C. #17905
Quote:
Originally Posted by bshgto View Post
From another Forum board. May be this will shake them up. One case will lead to another and snow ball after lawyers get wind of it.


Recent court cases have fallen on the side of the consumer.

IL Supreme Court: Buyers of defective RV not required to allow dealer to fix it before demanding refund

https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories...manding-refund

Defendant Vacationland Inc. argued that plaintiffs Kimberly Accettura and Adam Wozniak had not allowed it adequate time to fix the recreational vehicle’s defects before revoking their acceptance of the trailer. After succeeding at the circuit and appellate levels, Vacationland lost its argument before the Supreme Court on Sept. 19.

Accettura and Wozniak purchased the RV new from Vacationland in April 2014. That June, they noticed a window leaked, and Vacationland offered to repair the issue at no charge. A month later, leaking windows during a rainstorm caused extensive damage inside the RV, including electrical failure. Vacationland told the couple it could not repair the defect itself and would have to send the RV back to the manufacturer.

Neither Vacationland nor the manufacturer would give the couple an estimate of how long the repairs would take, and the RV sat at the dealership for more than two weeks without being picked up by the manufacturer. Nearly three weeks after returning the vehicle for repairs, Accettura and Wozniak called Vacationland and “verbally revoked acceptance of the RV.”

About six weeks later, Vacationland called the couple and told them the repairs were complete and they could pick up the vehicle. The pair responded with a letter from their attorney confirming they had revoked their acceptance of the RV.

At issue before the court was whether the revocation was allowed under the Uniform Commercial Code. The code states that a buyer may “revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value” under two conditions – one, if the buyer knew the item was defective but expected it to be repaired, and it was not repaired in a reasonable amount of time; or two, if the buyer did not know of the defect at the time of purchase.

While Vacationland conceded that the buyers did not know the RV was defective when they purchased it, it claimed the statute allows that the dealership should have time to address the defect. The buyers, meanwhile, argued that the ability to repair a defect applies only to the first condition of the statute and not the second.

“We agree with [the plaintiffs’] interpretation,” Justice Rita B. Garman wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion. “We find this language plain and … subsection (1)(b) [of the UCC} does not require that a buyer give the seller an opportunity to cure.”
__________________
Great news for RV owners. This should drastically improve the quality of build and the effort to repair.
__________________
Pete & Joan & "Honey" fur-baby.
2015 Montana 3611RL 2012 F350 6.7 DRW Lariat
Disc Brakes & Sailun 14 ply S637
6-pt Hydraulic leveling
PeteandJoan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 01:15 PM   #3
jcurtis934
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pensacola (mail forward service)
Posts: 2,860
M.O.C. #13740
I am not so sure that this will affect the state of current rv quality and lack of dealer business ethics or dealings in a timely matter with customers. All models side heavily with corporations/businesses over the public.
__________________
2012 F350 6.7 L dually, 2013 3800RE with 6 pt leveling, Sumitomo 17.5" load range h tires, Samsung 18 cu ft residential fridge, 8k Morryde I.S. with disc brakes. Full timing since 2012.
jcurtis934 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Montana RV, Keystone RV Company or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×