Your source for automobile lemon law and motor vehicle lemon law. Get comprehensive automobile lemon law help. Submit your vehicle details for Free Case review and legal help.
Home
|
Contact Us
California
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Minnesota
Missouri
Ohio
Texas
Wisconsin
Washington D.C
About Us
Blog
Free case Review
State Lemon Laws
Select States
California
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Minnesota
Missouri
Ohio
Texas
Wisconsin
Washington D.C
New CA Car Law
Lemon Law
The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act
Warranty Rights
Consumer Fraud
Class Action Lawsuits
Enter Your Email ID
Recent Success Stories
I could not have fought this battle without you
THANK YOU for all your hard work!!
I was being wrongfully treated and served as a customer
Thank you for hard work with our law suit against Ford Motor Company
Thank you for getting the best and fairest deal from GM
Hinchen v. Ford Motor Company and Fritts Ford
More Success Stories...
Lemon Law News
Florida Appellate Court Reverses Seminole County Court's Order Setting Aside a Jury's Lemon Law Verdict in Favor of Purchaser of Defective Ford Mustang.
Chrysler Financials was ordered to Pay $6,000.00 in Damages for Breach of Warranty on a Leased Vehicle
Honda claims it was not a manufacturing defect, ordered to pay 65% of the brand new ATV's value to its owner
Extended Auto Warranties - Avoid scams on buying
Consumer Awarded $81,000 For damaged Jeep Cherokee Sold
Local Woman Gets Refund After Mini Van Doors Open While Driving
Georgia’s Lemon Law Helps Keep New Car Purchases From Going Sour
More News...
*
Name
*
State
Select State
California
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Minnesota
Missouri
Ohio
Texas
Wisconsin
Washington D.C
*
Email
*
Phone
*
Additional Details of your Inquiry
Client Success Story
Hinchen v. Ford Motor Company and Fritts Ford
Ms. Hinchen leased a new 2003 Ford Explorer from Fritts Ford on January 15, 2003. The gross capitalized cost of the vehicle was $45,292.52. Shortly after leasing the vehicle, she began to experience electrical problems, including an inoperable trip meter, the gas gauge registering incorrectly, illumination of a tire fault lamp, inoperable windows and an inoperable message center. She first returned to Ford’s authorized dealerships for her concerns with the electrical system in July 2003 when the vehicle had 13,416 miles on it. Despite repeated repair attempts by Ford’s dealers, Ms. Hinchen was required to return to the dealers on twelve separate occasions for these electrical problems. The case proceeded to jury trial in January 2005 in San Bernardino County. The Defendant, Ford Motor Company, contended that a non-party Ford Dealership installed the wrong instrument cluster on Ms. Hinchen’s first trip to the dealership in July 2003 which caused her continuing electrical problems. Ford further argued that the electrical problems present in the vehicle were corrected and repaired after the correct instrument cluster was put in the vehicle. The jury awarded Ms. Hinchen $15,312.10 and allowed her to keep the vehicle until the end of the lease.
Go Back