6 - 6
MAINE CONSUMER LAW GUIDE
breaks down two months after your written warranty expires, you are not necessarily out of luck.
Under the Maine Implied Warranty Law, not only the manufacturer but also the dealer (or the lessor if
a different party)
13
is responsible to you for a serious defect.
Under your implied warranty, you still have the right to expect the manufacturer or the dealer to
replace defective parts if the vehicle was not abused and was properly maintained. The implied
warranty requires that your car and its component parts perform satisfactorily during their ordinary
useful life as measured by the average life of similar new cars.
14
Of course, if you, the manufacturer and the dealer cannot agree on what is reasonable, you may
have to settle your differences in court. If your car is so defective as to be a violation of your implied
warranty rights, then you have a good argument why you should not have to pay an extended warranty
deductible. For an estimate of the useful life of different car parts, see § 6.19 of this chapter.
Generally, due to the U.C.C. Statute of Limitations, an implied warranty court action must be
started within 4 years of when you purchased the item.
§ 6. 8.
Your Rights To Damages
If you were sold a defective car and you had to pay to have it repaired, you may be eligible for
damages equal to the cost of the repair from either the dealer or the manufacturer. You may also be
eligible for incidental damages (e.g., cost of towing a broken down car back to the dealer) and
consequential damages (e.g., cost of necessary substitute transportation) (11 M.R.S.A. §§ 2-714, 2-
715). Additionally, you might also recover the amount your vehicle has diminished in value because it
had been defective and repaired.
15
§ 6. 9.
Deceptive Failure To Disclose
Repairs
If the dealer has made significant repairs to the “new” car you are purchasing, he should reveal
those repairs before you sign the purchase agreement. What repairs should be revealed? New paint?
Repaired dents? In the past there has been no hard-and-fast rule. But in general, if the repair was so
13
On the theory that a lease is the sale of a “service,” Maine consumers who lease cars primarily for their personal or
family use should also have implied warranty rights from both the manufacturer and the lessor (11 M.R.S.A. § 2316(5)).
14
See Suminski v. Maine Appliance Warehouse, Inc., 602 A. 2d 1173 (Me. 1992). In this case the Maine Supreme Judicial
Court found that a television seller’s refusal to even acknowledge the buyer’s implied warranty rights can be an unfair
trade practice. The court also offered this guidance on what defects are so serious as to be breaches of the implied
warranty:
In some circumstances a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the
U.C.C. may be established by circumstantial evidence. See e.g. A.A.A. Exteriors, Inc. v.
Don Mahurin Chevrolet & Oldsmobile, Inc., 429 N.E.2d 975, 978 (Inc. App. 1982). In
the case at bar, however, the television set was in all respects satisfactory during
approximately thirteen months after it was purchased. For all that appears in the record,
the malfunction at that time may have resulted from a defective switch, repairable at a
small cost. We conclude that the sale of a major appliance with a switch that fails more
than a year later, cannot support a finding that the entire appliance was unmerchantable
when sold. To use an automotive example, an unmerchantable battery may not render an
entire vehicle unmerchantable. Cf. Tallmadge v. Aurora Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 605
P.2d 1275, 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979); Tracy v. Vinton Motors, Inc., 296 A.2d 269, 272
(Vt. 1972).
15
See Marchesseault v. Jackson, 611 A.2d 95, 98 (Me. 1992) (homeowner entitled to damages measured both to the costs
repairing the defective foundation and the decrease in value of home because the foundation was so defective that it
needed to be repaired).