Lara v. Hyundai Motor America

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[i]f *** the limited remedy of replacement or repair of defective parts failed of its essential purpose, the express warranty’s exclusion of consequential and incidental damages will have no effect and those damages will be available to plaintiff pursuant to the UCC”
• holding that A[i]f *** the limited remedy of replacement or repair of defective parts failed of its essential purpose, the express warranty=s exclusion of consequential and incidental damages will have no effect and those damages will be available to plaintiff pursuant to the UCC@
• holding that A[i]f *** the limited remedy of replacement or repair of defective parts failed of its essential purpose, the express warranty=s exclusion of consequential and incidental damages will have no effect and those damages will be available to plaintiff pursuant to the UCC@
• claim for breach of limited warranty is governed by the state version of the Uniform Commercial Code
• “A remedy limitation fails of its essential purpose when a seller unreasonably delays the replacement of the product, refuses to replace it at all, or is unsuccessful in correcting the defects ‘within a reasonable time’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).