Liles v. Damon Corp., 345 Or. 420

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oregon interpreted Oregon's Lemon Law requirements for when a statutory remedy is available to a consumer. The court held that the manufacturer's receipt of direct written notification and its opportunity to correct the alleged defect are not necessarily prefiling requirements, and affirmed relief for the plaintiffs because the manufacturer had opportunities to repair the motor home's defects before the trial court determined the remedy was available.

Holdings

1. No. ORS 646A.402(3) does not require the manufacturer's opportunity to correct the defect to occur after the consumer gives direct written notification. The opportunity must concern the same defect for which the consumer seeks the statutory remedy, but it may occur before or after the written notification.
2. No. The written-notification and opportunity-to-correct provisions of ORS 646A.402(3) are conditions governing whether the court may grant the statutory remedy, not procedural prerequisites that must be completed before the action is filed.
3. Yes. Damon had an ample opportunity to correct the motor home's water-leak defects before the circuit court determined that the Lemon Law remedy was available.

Questions Presented

1. Whether ORS 646A.402(3) requires the manufacturer's opportunity to correct the alleged defect to occur after the consumer's direct written notification.
2. Whether the written-notification and opportunity-to-correct conditions under ORS 646A.402(3) must be satisfied before the consumer files a Lemon Law action.
3. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the opportunity-to-correct condition when Damon had attempted repairs before receiving written notice and was given access to the vehicle after suit was filed.

Disposition

reversed