Opinion ID: 3031066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nevada Lemon Law

Text: [4] The district court did not commit clear error when it found a violation of the Nevada lemon law. There was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that after a reasonable number of attempts at repair had been made, a reasonable person would have found the use and value of the car substantially impaired, as did Milicevic. The Nevada lemon law states that if an automobile manufacturer, its agent or its authorized dealer is not able to conform a vehicle to its warranty after a reasonable number of attempts to repair the vehicle have been made, and the nonconformity substantially impairs the use and value of the vehicle to the buyer, it must replace the vehicle or give the purchaser a refund of the purchase price, including taxes and fees, less a deduction for the reasonable use of the vehicle. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.630(1). If within the first year, or within the time the warranty is in effect, whichever is less, the same condition is subject to repair four or more times or the vehicle is out of service for repair more than 30 calendar days for reasons not beyond the control of the manufacturer, its agent or its authorized dealer, it is presumed that a reasonable number of attempts to repair the vehicle have been made. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.630(2). When the vehicle is out of service more than 30 calendar days, the nonconformity does not have to be ongoing. See id. Here the presumption that a reasonable number of attempts at repair had been made was appropriate because Milicevic’s car was subject to repair four or more times within the first year for the condition both of the brakes and of the rear winMILICEVIC v. FLETCHER JONES IMPORTS 3711 dow, conditions which Fletcher Jones never successfully repaired. Additionally, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Milicevic’s car was out of service for repair a cumulative total of 55 days during the first year. Although Mercedes claims that the vehicle was only “out of service” for repair 24 days, discounting 31 days Milicevic’s car was at Fletcher Jones awaiting the arrival of parts needed to fix the rear window seal, Fletcher Jones ordered the wrong part for the repair. When a repair is delayed by the unavailability of a part, the time under section 597.630(2)(b) is not tolled. Cf. Ayer v. Ford Motor Co., 503 N.W.2d 767, 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (“To allow a defendant to assert the unavailability of parts as a reason for failing to make timely repairs would defeat the statute’s intent to place the risk of inconvenience and monetary loss on the manufacturer rather than the consumer.”). Milicevic had no control over the ordering of the parts, nor was she in a position to know how long the necessary parts would take to arrive. She left her car at Fletcher Jones while the parts were on order because she was told the repair would take only a few days. The responsibility for the timeliness of the repair rested with Fletcher Jones.