Title: Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

Filed 6/23/04 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
ROSEMARIE GAVALDON et al., 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Appellant, 
) 
S104477 
 
 
) 
 
v. 
) 
Ct.App. 4/3 
 
 
) 
Nos. G026626, G027036 
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, ) 
 
 
) 
Orange County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. 785866 
___________________________________ ) 
 
MODIFCATION OF OPINION 
 
THE COURT: 
The opinion in this case is modified as follows: 
 
Footnote 3 on pages 13-14 of the slip opinion, now reads: “That phrase was 
only added in 1998.  (Stats. 1998, ch. 196, § 2.).”  It is modified to read: “That 
phrase was only added in 1993.”  (Stats. 1993, ch. 1265, § 12, p. 7419.)” 
The second to last sentence of the paragraph on pages 20-21 now reads:  
 
Rather, the amendment of section 1794, subdivision (b), was 
intended to foreclose the then-current argument that, because the 
replacement or restitution obligation imposed on manufacturers for 
violation of express warranties in section 1792.3(d) was not included 
in the remedies section of the Song-Beverly Act, section 1794, such 
remedy was not available to service contract consumers.  
 
It is modified to read:  
 
Rather, the amendment of section 1794, subdivision (b), was 
intended to foreclose the then-current argument that, because the 
replacement or restitution obligation imposed on manufacturers for 
violation of express warranties in section 1792.3(d) was not included 
in the remedies section of the Song-Beverly Act, section 1794, such 
remedy was not available to consumers. 
These modifications do not affect the judgment.