Doom for the RV industry???

theoldwizard1 wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
Sounds like they were yanked around and it literally took an excessive amount of time to address.

Similar to automobiles, if they fix things in a timely manner, it's not covered by lemon laws but if it gets crazy, it is.

Lemon laws vary state to state, but in general, factory representatives (dealers) are given a certain number of attempts to repair an issue. Also there is a limited number of days that the vehicle can be away from the customer. If either are exceeded, it is a "lemon" and must be re-purchased from the customer at full price.

I am sure, every major auto manufacturer has had to "buy back" vehicles. In all case they are repaired and resold, typically with full disclosure and with the full factory warranty "clock" reset to zero.

IMHO, it about time this gets applied to RVs !

This does not have anything to do with "Lemon Laws".

What the Illinois Supreme Court ruled is that under the Illinois adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code, under two circumstances a buyer can "Revoke Acceptance" of the sale.

From the horses mouth;

We agree with this interpretation. The plain language of the statute evinces the General Assembly’s intention to allow a buyer to revoke acceptance of a substantially impaired commercial unit under two separate and distinct circumstances. The first circumstance is when the buyer knows of the nonconformity, the buyer accepts the nonconforming unit with a reasonable assumption that the nonconformity will be cured, and the seller fails to seasonably cure it. 810 ILCS 5/2-608(1)(a) (West 2014). The second is when the buyer accepts the nonconforming unit without knowledge of the nonconformity and either the nonconformity was difficult to discover or the seller assured her that the unit conformed to the specifications. Id. § 2-608(1)(b). ¶ 14 Both situations contemplate a nonconformity that substantially impairs the unit’s value to the buyer. Where they diverge is in the buyer’s expectation. The first contemplates a buyer who accepts a nonconforming unit and expects the seller to cure the nonconformity. When she does not get that cure seasonably, she can revoke her acceptance. The second contemplates a buyer who accepts what she believes to be a conforming unit. When she does not get that conforming unit, she can revoke her acceptance. Because we find this language plain and because subsection (1)(b) does not require that a buyer give the seller an opportunity to cure, we need not consider the requirements of other statutes that defendant argues are analogous.

This ruling is not specific to RV's. It supposedly can be applied to any type of vehicle, a new home, a TV, a can of beans, or a roll of toilet paper that your finger poked through. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. As I said before it all comes down to if a state adopted the UCC including the specific section / article of the UCC which is under Article 2. A state could adopt the entire code, a single article, or even a single clause / sentence. Its no different than a building code.

You can bet your rear end that the RVIA, RVDA, Palomino RV (Forest River) are going to provide the funds necessary to appeal this ruling. I would assume to Federal Court and maybe even to the SCOTUS eventually but I'm not an attorney so not sure, maybe one of the members here that is can chime in?

Stay tuned, for about 10 years, because this ruling took 5 years to shake out.