Journal of Economics and Business

ISSN 2615-3726 (Online)

ISSN 2621-5667 (Print)

Published: 11 December 2019

The Case of the Florida Lemon: Options for the Buyer or Trap for the Consumer: The Florida Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act

Richard J. Hunter Jr., John H. Shannon, Henry J. Amoroso

Seton Hall University, USA

Download Full-Text Pdf


Pages: 1328-1338

Keywords: Lemon Law, Defect, Warranties, Arbitration


The State of Florida is just one of the fifty states and the District of Columbia which have enacted a state Lemon Law. This paper outlines the provisions of the Florida statutory scheme that covers both the sale and lease of vehicles that are found to be “lemons.” The Florida Lemon Law is also known as “The Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act,” as it must be viewed in light of legal provisions relating to warranties. The Florida Lemon Law determines what defects or conditions will trigger the operation of a warranty and whether and under what circumstances the warrantor (generally, the manufacturer) may attempt to remedy or “cure” any defective condition. The paper also outlines the procedures for resolving a dispute between a dealer or automobile manufacturer and an unsatisfied customer when the customer is seeking either a refund or a replacement vehicle for a “lemon.”


  1. Anderson, R.R. (2018). A look back at the future of UCC damages remedies. Southern Methodist Law Review, 71: 185-247.
  2. Davis, T. (2010). UCC breach of warranty and contract claims: Clarifying the distinctions. Baylor Law Review, 61(3): 783-817.
  3. DiMatteo, L.A., & Wrbka, S. (2019). Planned obsolescence and consumer protection: The unregulated extended warranty and service contract industry. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 28: 483-544.
  4. Dressler, J.M. (2009). Good faith rejection of goods in a failing market. Connecticut Law Review, 42: 611-645.
  5. Essmeier, C. (2005). Auto lemon laws- about the arbitration process. Articles Factory. Available:
  6. Ganz, A.S. (1964). Limitation of liability under the sales provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. DePaul Law Review, 14: 72-82.
  7. Hanin, M., Greenbaum, C., & Aron-Dine, J. (2016-2017). Interpreting the “reasonable number of repair attempts” standard in lemon law administration. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 29: 327-342.
  8. Hester, P.T., & Adams, M.G. (2017). Ford Pinto case study. Systemic Decision Making: 351-384.
  9. Hunter, R.J. (2016). A statutory override of an “as is” sale: A historical appraisal and analysis of the UCC, Magnuson-Moss, and state lemon laws. University of Massachusetts Law Review, 11: 44-62.
  10. Hunter, R.J., Amoroso, H.J., & Shannon, J.H. (2012). A managerial guide to products liability: A primer on the law in the United States. International Journal of Learning and Development, 2(3): 34-56.
  11. Hunter, R.J., Shannon, J.H., & Amoroso, H.J. (2018). Products liability: A managerial perspective (Second edition). Create Space.
  12. Hunter, R.J., & Montuori, M.A. (2013). The hand that truly rocks the cradle: A reprise of infant crib safety lawsuits and regulation from 2007-2012. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 25(2/3): 229-247
  13. Kwestel, S. (2010). Express warranty of fitness for a particular purpose: Extent of overlap in same factual context with implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. U.C.C. Bulletin, 71(1) (Touro Law Center Legal Studies Research Paper Series). Available:
  14. Lane, S. (2019). Lemon laws and your vehicle warranty.
  15. Lawrence, W.H. (1994). The revision of article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code: Appropriate standards for a buyer’s refusal to keep goods tendered by a seller. William & Mary Law Review, 35: 1635-1690.
  16. Lee, M.T. (1998). The Ford Pinto case and the development of auto safety regulations, 1893-1978. Business an Economic History, 27(2): 390-401.
  17. Murray, J. (2019). Learn how the arbitration process works. The Balance.Available:
  18. NADA (National Automobile Dealers Association). (2019). Official used car guide (Southeastern Edition). Available:
  19. Office of Attorney General. (2019). Consumer guide to the Florida Lemon Law.
  20. Owen, D.G. (2002). Manufacturing defects. South Carolina Law Review, 53: 852-905.
  21. Ponomarenko, M. (2018). Administrative rationality review. Virginia Law Review, 104: 1399-1469.
  22. Radogna, J. (2016). Used car warranties: What you don’t know CAN hurt you. Digital Dealer (June 17, 2016). Available:’t-know-can-hurt-2/
  23. Repa, B.K. (2019). Arbitration pros and cons. Nolo. Available:
  24. Reporter (2019). The road to settlement: ADR can offer cost-effective alternatives to trial. Family Advocate, 42: 11-12.
  25. Saunders, K.M. (2016). Can you ever disclaim an express warranty? The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship and the Law, 9(1): 59-71.
  26. Schwartz, A. (1975). Cure and revocation for quality defects: The utility of bargains. Boston College Law Review, 16(4): 543-575.
  27. Smith, S.C. (2011). Is your problem car a lemon under Florida law. Here’s how to tell. Orlando Sentinel (April 11, 2011). Available:
  28. Stewart, L.S. (2009. Strict liability for defective product design: The quest for a well-ordered regime. Brooklyn Law Review, 74(3): 1039-1059.
  29. Tansey, M. (2019). Death of a (used car) salesman: A discussion on the interplay between warranty exclusion and fraud. Baylor Law Review, 71: 213-238.
  30. Twerski, A. & Henderson, Jr., J.A. (2009). Manufacturer’s liability for defective product designs: The triumph of risk-utility. Cornell Law Faculty Publications, Paper 794: 1061-1108. Available:


  1. Auto Lemon (2019). Lemon law topics: Arbitration - a “must read.” Available:
  2. (2019). Warranty definition. Available:
  3. Lemon Law (2019). Lemon law statutes by state. Available:
  4. (2019. Lemon law for new cars. Available: › legal-encyclopedia › lemon-law-used-cars-30107
  5. US (2019). Defective product law and legal definition. Available: https://definitions.uslegal,com/defective-products


  1. Restatement (Third) Torts: Product Liability §§ 1-2 (1998)
  2. State of Florida. (2019). Motor Vehicle Sales Warranties, Chapter 681 (2019)
  3. UCC Section 2-104(1): Merchant
  4. UCC Section 2-201)-(10): Conspicuous
  5. UCC Section 2-201-(20): Good Faith
  6. UCC Section 2-313: Express Warranties by Affirmation, Promise, Description, Sample
  7. UCC Section 2-314: Implied Warranty: Merchantability; Usage of Trade
  8. UCC Section 2-315: Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose
  9. UCC Section 2-316: Exclusion or Modification of Warranties
  10. UCC Section 2-508: Cure by Seller of Improper Tender or Delivery
  11. UCC Section 2-712: "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods
  12. UCC Section 2-715: Buyer’s Incidental and Consequential Damages


  1. Allen v. Holiday Kamper Co., LLC (2019). 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147079 (United States District Court for the District of South Carolina).
  2. Bieda v. Case New Holland Industries, Inc. (2019). 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171844 (United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania).
  3. Boatland of Houston v. Bailey (1980). 609 S.W.2d 743 (Supreme Court of Texas).
  4. Easterling v. Ford Motor Co. (2019). 303 F. Supp. 3d 1211 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama).
  5. General Motors Corporation v. Dohmann (1998). 247 Conn. 274 (Supreme Court of Connecticut).
  6. Gilvin v. FCA USA, LLC [The Chrysler Corporation] (2019). 2019 U.S. District. LEXIS 174495 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio).
  7. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963). 377 P.2d 897 (Supreme Court of California).
  8. Hunt v. Ferguson-Paulus Enterprises (1966). 243 Ore. 546 (Supreme Court of Oregon).
  9. Kaiser Martin Group, Inc. v. Haas Door Co. (2019). 5:19-cv-01823 (United State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
  10. Sheinfeld v. BMW Financial Services, NA, Inc. (2019). 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (United States District Court for District of Nevada).
  11. Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc. (1962). 308 F.2d 79 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit).
  12. Talavera v. Ford Motor Co. (2013). 932 F. Supp. 252 (United States for the District of Puerto Rico).
  13. Yvon v. Baja Marine Corp. (2007). 495 F. Supp. 1179 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida).

About Us

The Asian Institute of Research is an online and open-access platform to publish recent research and articles of scholars worldwide. Founded in 2018 and based in Indonesia, the Institute serves as a platform for academics, educators, scholars, and students from Asia and around the world, to connect with one another. The Institute disseminates research that is proven or predicted to be of significant influence for the general public.

Contact Us

Please send all inquiries to the email:

Business Address:

5th Floor, Kavling 507, Fajar Graha Pena Tower, Jl. Urip Sumohardjo No.20, Makassar, Indonesia 90234

Copyright © 2018 The Asian Institute of Research. All rights reserved

Stay Connected

  • Instagram - Black Circle
  • Facebook - Black Circle
  • LinkedIn - Black Circle