Effects of Deferrals Lemon Law Language ARBITRATORS ASKED TO CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF DEFERRALS (from The Administrator Newsletter Spring 2001) Federal Trade Commission guidelines allow for the deferral of a case. However, arbitrators are asked to be sensitive to the expeditious nature of informal arbitration processes. Deferring a case can be beneficial to an arbitrator, whether the reason is to obtain more information from an involved party, request the customer make an oral presentation, or have an independent inspection performed. Deferring a case can have some negative aspects, as well. When a case is deferred, the decision is delayed another month, affecting both the customer and the manufacturer. This raises issues of fairness to the parties involved and the possibility that the concerns may need repair in the interim. In contemplating a deferral, arbitrators should consider the following questions: Is there enough information already in the file to make an informed decision? Is the requested information necessary to make a fair decision? Is it possible to obtain this information without delaying the case? If the case is deferred for an inspection, is the arbitrator yielding its authority to the inspector? The deferral of a case can be a useful tool to arbitrators when faced with missing or conflicting information. However, the arbitrator should weigh the significance of the information being requested against the effects of the deferral on the involved parties.Back to top. ARBITRATION BOARDS ARE ASKED TO BE SPECIFIC WHEN USING LEMON LAW LANGUAGE (From The Administrator Newsletter, February 2001) Many state statutes specifically define a "nonconformity" as a defect or condition, which substantially impairs the use, value or safety of the vehicle. It's interesting to note that California actually defines "nonconformity" and "substantial nonconformity" differently; a "nonconformity" is a failure to conform to the written warranty, and a "substantial nonconformity" is a failure to conform which impairs the use, value and safety of the vehicle. Decisions should be very specific regarding the Board's findings involving a "nonconformity" or a "substantial nonconformity." If a Board doesn't specify that a concern is a "substantial nonconformity," that language shouldn't appear in the summary. Likewise, if a Board concludes an item is a substantial nonconformity that impairs the use, value and safety of the vehicle, all the information should be included in the decision. If the language isn't in the summary, the information cannot be included in the decision letter to the customer, dealer, and manufacturer. Should a Board reach the conclusion that an item does constitute a substantial nonconformity affecting the use, value, or safety of a vehicle and render a decision not to reacquire the vehicle, the Board should be very specific as to why they are not taking the customer out of the vehicle. Customers, attorneys and regulators often see a finding of "substantial nonconformity" as satisfying the burden on the customer to prove their case. If the Board doesn't explain why that finding isn't enough to get the customer out of the vehicle there may be unnecessary confusion. As an example, a Board may include in its decision language that indicates: "the Board determined that the transmission concerns constitutes a substantial nonconformity affecting the use, value, and safety of the vehicle, however (a specific) repair will resolve the concern." Back to top.