Mike Majors v Tesla Dearlship

Facts: On February 15, 2015, Mr. Majors bought a Telsa

Model S Car for $112,000.00. Ever since he purchased the
car Mr. Majors has been having problems. The car stalls
and make noises, also the car cut off on him while driving.
Mr. Majors has taken the car to a Dealership in Ohio
several times to have the problem fixed. The car is now
parked in Mr. Majors driveway because the problem has
yet to be fixed.
Issue: Mr. Major wants to return the car back to its owner.
We need to find out if Mr. Major has a case under the
Michigan Lemon Laws.
Rule: Under section MCL 257. 1401- MCL 257. 1410. It
states that if a new Motor vehicle has any defect or
condition that impairs the use or value of the new motor
vehicle to the consumer or which prevents the new motor
vehicle from conforming to the manufacturers express
warranty, the manufacturer or a new motor vehicle dealer
of that type of motor vehicle shall repair the defect or
condition as required under the section 3 if the consumer
initially reported the defect or condition to the
manufacturer or the new motor vehicle dealer within 1 of
the following time periods, whichever is earlier.
(a)During the term the manufacturers express warranty is
in effect
(B)Not later than 1 year from the date of delivery of the
new motor vehicle to the original consumer. Mr. Major has
followed all these rules that applied, he took the car back
within one week for repairs and in within the warranty.

Analysis: Robert H Henderon v Chrysler corporation Court

of Appeals, December 19, 1990. Robert Henderson
brought an action against appellant manufacturer for
revocation of acceptance of an automobile. The case was
removed to district court after mediation upon a finding
that the damages were below the jurisdictional limit for
circuit court. The district court denied Chryslers motion
for dismissal based on lack of subject-matter
jurisdictional. The case proceeded to trail, and the jury
found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $7,494.46 plus
interest and cost against Chrysler and $788 against
Colonial. Chryslers motion for a judgement
notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial was denied.
First we affirm the trials courts finding that the district
court had subject-matter jurisdiction. Although plaintiffs
claim was referred to as rescission in the complaint, it is
apparent that the plaintiff was asserting revocation of
acceptance of a motor vehicle sales contract contract
pursuant to art 2, 608 of the UCC, MCL 440.2608; MSA
19.2608, which provides:
(1)The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or
commercial unit whose nonconformity substanitially
impairs its value to him if he has accepted it.
(a)On the reasonable assumption that its nonconformity
would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
(b)without discovery of such nonconformity if his
acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty
of discovery before acceptance or by the sellers
assurances.
(2)Revocation of acceptance must occur within reasonable
time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered
the ground for it and before any substantial change in
condition of the goods which is not caused by their own
defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the
seller of it.

(3)A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties
with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected
them.
Conclusion: In conclusion I believe that Telsa Corporation
is at fault. Mr. Majors did everything he was susposed to
do In the right amount time. I believe the dealership did
not do their part in fixing the car properly therefor Mr.
Majors deserve to either be reimbursed his money back or
be given another vehicle. We should take Mr. majors case
and I believe we will win.