lemon law

I purchased a used car from a car dealer, I recently tried to trade this vehicle in for a new car at another dealer, this new dealer ran a search on my vehicle and found that it had a lemon title on it, the dealer I purchased the car from did not disclose this information to me and claim to not knowing this information, the title the car has in california is clean, however, at one time it was declared a lemon car, how the title did not follow the car I do not know. I want to know if I have the right to cancel my contract with this dealer for fraud reasons and receive my money back that was put down at time of purchase and money already paid towards the payoff. The value of this car was obviously misrepresented at the time I purchased it whether the dealer was in knowledge of the history of the car or not making it impossible for me to receive it's value on a trade in, but I paid full price for it.

I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.

You didn't mention how long ago you purchased the used vehicle. How long the lemon title was on it. How long before your purchase from car dealer. etc.

California's Lemon Law - California Civil Code Section 1793.22
California's consumer warranty law requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle leased or sold with a manufacturer's written warranty to repair the vehicle during the warranty period so that it conforms to the warranty. The vehicle may be a new car, van, truck or the chassis portion of a motorhome, but it must have been purchased or leased for nonbusiness use. The Lemon Law applies to used vehicles only when they are still covered by the Manufacturer's original warranty.


Otherwise, if both parties didn't know about the lemon title, then you can cancel the contract under a theory of mutual mistake. But you might have to sue to get the money back.

I think I posted the reply to your reply in the wrong place. the car with the newfound lemon title was purchased by me in April 2000, the lemon title was placed on it in November 1999, and I just tried to trade it in for the new car January 10, 2001, this is when I found out about the lemon title. Do you know if by law the lemon title was suppose to stay with the history of the car through interstate transfer and if it was somehow, and somewhere it didn't get reported in California. Also if the dealer I bought the car from didn't know about this car being titled a lemon in it's history am I still entitled to a cancellation of my contract for the simple fact that the car has still been fraudulently represented either to their knowledge or not. And the fact still remains that the car is branded and is not worth what it should be worth according to my contract and what I paid for it. I feel that since I paid full market value I should be entitled to a trade in at full market value.

Sometimes it is possible for this to come outside the chain of title. If the car dealer reasonably didn't know, couldn't have found out, then yes, it can be cancelled although it wouldn't be cancelled based on fraud. THE DEALER HAD TO KNOW OF THE BAD TITLE to cancel the contract based on fraud.

How would I be able to cancel the contract if not for the fraud reason. If they don't believe they are responsible they won't want to cancel the contract. The fact still remains that the car in and of itself is a fraud, the dealer could have very well ran the same type of check the other dealership did. And if they did not know and got the car with a clean title giving them no reason to check then they have to go back to who they purchased it from and deal with them, I don't have a contract with the business who "washed" the title or at least I don't know who was responsible for tampering with the title. And are you sure that the dealership had to be in knowledge of the fraud, because to my understanding busineses have a different responsibility then the normal consumer when it comes to the three elements that need to exist for fraud to have occured.

when you have a mutual mistake as to a contract -- i..e both didn't know of the bad title, the contract is fully voidable because it was a mutal mistake as to a material part of the deal.

As for fraud, however way you put it, the dealer's intent had to be fraudulent -- ie. known or should have known of title