CALIF. APP. CT. REJECTS ERRONEOUS DEFINITION OF ‘SUBSTANTIALLY’ Lundy v. Ford Motor Co. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

CALIF. APP. CT. REJECTS ERRONEOUS DEFINITION OF ‘SUBSTANTIALLY’ Lundy v. Ford Motor Co. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, CALIF. APP. CT. REJECTS ERRONEOUS DEFINITION OF ‘SUBSTANTIALLY’ Lundy v. Ford Motor Co., Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

CALIF. APP. CT. REJECTS ERRONEOUS DEFINITION OF ‘SUBSTANTIALLY’ Lundy v. Ford Motor Co.

20 No. 12 ANAUTOLR 6Andrews Automotive Litigation Reporter (Approx. 2 pages)

CALIF. APP. CT. REJECTS ERRONEOUS DEFINITION OF ‘SUBSTANTIALLY’ Lundy v. Ford Motor Co.

20 No. 12 ANAUTOLR 6Andrews Automotive Litigation Reporter (Approx. 2 pages)

20 No. 12 Andrews Automotive Litig. Rep. 6
Andrews Automotive Litigation Reporter
March 27, 2001
Lemon Law (California)
Copyright (c) 2001 Andrews Publications

CALIF. APP. CT. REJECTS ERRONEOUS DEFINITION OF ‘SUBSTANTIALLY’

Lundy v. Ford Motor Co.

A state appeals court panel in California, reversing a verdict for the plaintiff in a lemon law case, has ruled that the term “substantial impairment” is an objective test and must involve a defect which is more than merely “actual” or “not...
End of Document© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.