In some limited instances, the manufacturer may repurchase the vehicle. In most cases, a cash award will be the remedy. Typically [80%] recovery is anywhere 5% to 15% of the purchase price. The range depends on the number of repairs, nature of the repairs. mileage on the vehicle and days out of service. In some instances, the damages will exceed 15% due to the extent of the defect, circumstances and days out of service.
The law provides that if the buyer proves a manufacturing defect with vehicle that the manufacturer is liable for the buyers’ attorney fees. Part of our investigation and evaluation process is to identify manufacturing defects. When we proceed, we are confident we can prove a manufacturing defect. Thus, we seek our attorney fees from the manufacturer. If a settlement can be reached, the fees will be part of the settlement agreement. If the case goes to trial, the fees will be part of a verdict or order. Either way, you are not required to pre-pay fees, pay a retainer or pay fees in the event we fail to make a recovery on your behalf.
Louisiana laws that address motor vehicle warranties include: La.R.S. 51:1941, et seq. (“Louisiana Lemon Law”), La.C.C.Art. 2520, et seq. (Redhibition), 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq. (“Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act”), Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code and La.R.S. 51:1401, et seq. (Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act).
It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties if the vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of forty-five or more calendar days or the same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer within the warranty term or during a period of one year following the date of the original delivery of the motor vehicle to the consumer, whichever is the earlier date.
“Nonconformity” means any specific or generic defect or malfunction, or any defect or condition which substantially impairs the use, market value or both of a motor vehicle.”
The seller warrants the buyer against redhibitory defects, or vices, in the thing sold. A defect is redhibitory when it renders the thing useless, or its use so inconvenient that it must be presumed that a buyer would not have bought the thing had he known of the defect. The existence of such a defect gives a buyer the right to obtain rescission of the sale. A defect is redhibitory also when, without rendering the thing totally useless, it diminishes its usefulness or its value so that it must be presumed that a buyer would still have bought it but for a lesser price. The existence of such a defect limits the right of a buyer to a reduction of the price. NOTE: There are no minimum number of repairs nor is their a minimum number of days out of service. Redhibition simply requires that the vehicle possess a defect at the time of sale that rendered it useless or so inconvenient a reasonable buyer would not have bought the vehicle.
The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act is a United States federal law (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.) that governs warranties on consumer products. The law does not require any product to have a warranty (it may be sold “as is”), but if it does have a warranty, the warranty must comply with this law. The law was created to fix problems as a result of manufacturers using disclaimers on warranties in an unfair or misleading manner and provides consumers with remedies for violation of express and implied warranties.
Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or movable property, corporeal or incorporeal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive method, act, or practice declared unlawful by R.S. 51:1405, may bring an action individually but not in a representative capacity to recover actual damages. If the court finds the unfair or deceptive method, act, or practice was knowingly used, after being put on notice by the attorney general, the court shall award three times the actual damages sustained. In the event that damages are awarded under this Section, the court shall award to the person bringing such action reasonable attorney fees and costs. Upon a finding by the court that an action under this Section was groundless and brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court may award to the defendant reasonable attorney fees and costs.
This is what we do! Mr. Duck has over 28 years of litigation experience in the field of consumer law and has successfully represented thousands of motor vehicle owners and collected millions of dollars in damages from automobile manufacturers as a result of the “LEMONS” his clients purchased.
Duck Law Firm represented me when my brand new vehicle left me stranded on four occasions. The car company would not let me out of my lease or replace my car. It was clearly a lemon! Duck Law Firm was able to get all the money I paid, including my insurance refunded. If you have any issues with your vehicle, I highly recommend Kevin Duck and the Duck Law Firm.
I have heard of the lemon law before but never fully understood what it actually meant. I saw an add on Facebook for the Duck Law Firm Lemon Lawyer. I decided to reach out to them & I’m glad I did! I was a little skeptical at first because it seemed to good to be true. I literally replied to a few emails scanned some documents and maybe made 2 phone calls during the entire process. Of course I had questions, how does this work? Will I really get paid if there is a winnable case? I explained to them that I had a 2020 GMC Sierra with multiple/recalls including safety recalls & that my transmission had to be pulled due to failed transmission pump part. My vehicle was only 1.5 years old w/28K miles, which is well under factor warranty of 3yrs/36K miles. The Duck Law firm asked me to send all service receipts. After I submitted the receipts a few weeks went by & The Duck Law firm confirmed I had a winnable case & there would be no service charge for this work that was already completed. No harm no foul, it was that easy. In about 9 months The Duck Law Firm reached a settlement with GM and I received a substantial settlement for my truck. It was that easy. The Duck Law firm is very professional . If you have a lemon of a vehicle do not hesitate & reach out to them ASAP.
The experience from start to finish was both pleasant and professional. The gentleman who I communicated with kept me updated on every detail of my case and ALWAYS returned my calls when promised. My case was completed in a very timely and effective manner. I am recommending Duck Law Firm to All who are experiencing problems related to the Lemon Law. Thanks Mr. Duck and Associates!
The Duck Law Firm is a great group to work with. They have always given great advice and guided me through legal troubles like family. I will always send loved ones their way when needing help with personal injury and lemon law assists.
My brand new truck was plagued with transmission issues from the get-go. The manufacturer would not agree to a thorough repair even though it was under warranty. The Duck Law Firm took my case and crushed the large automotive corporation with a decisive monetary victory. Highly Recommended!
Very thankful to the Duck Law Agency. They saw the wrong that was done stepped in and helped out my family. If there was a TEN Star rating they would get it….thanks
Law firm is very professional very attentive to my needs whenever I called Erin Farnsworth took the time to help and answer any questions or issues I had, I would recommend Kevin duck and I will use Kevin duck in the future , they got my money fast! Also I received more than I thought I would initially get thank you duck law firm especially Erin outstanding job you guys are awesome!