Question

LibUUDDIUI Forum A Question of Ethics-Lemon Laws. Randal Schweiger bought a 2008 Kia Spectra EX from Kia Motors America, Inc., for his stepdaughter, April Kirichkow. The cost was $17,231, plus sales tax and other charges, and Schweiger financed the entire amount. April soon began having trouble starting the car. The Kia dealership replaced various parts of the motor several times, but was unable to fix the problem. Schweiger sought a refund under the state's lemon law. When Schweiger and Kia could not agree on the amount, Schweiger filed a suit in a Wisconsin state court against Kia. The court ruled in Schweiger's favor, and Kia appealed. [Schweiger v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 347 Wis.2d 550,830 N.W.2d 723 (2013)] (See Warranties.) 1. Kia offered a refund of $3,306.24. Should this offer bar Schweiger's claim for a refund? Why or why not? 2. Schweiger claimed that Kia's offer did not include the $1,301 cost of a service contract that he purchased with the car. Kia argued that the amount still owed on the purchase, $13,060.16--which Schweiger agreed was the correct amount "would by definition refund the cost of the service contract." The court found "no logical basis" for this argument. Is it ethical for a party to argue a position for which there is no logical basis?

Answer 1

Answer According to the given data we can say that the purchases of defective automobiles are known as lemons. The lemon laws of state and the remedies to consumers who buy the auto- mobiles that frequently fail to meet the various standards or features of quality and Performance because they said to be as demons. A various number of oppurtunities are Provided to the seller to remedy the fault. suppose, in case the seller is not able to solve the fault, despite of reasonable effort or attempts, then the buyer is allowed for replacement of defective parts or for a new car or the return of all consideration paid. The buyer's who are succeeded in a dispute of lemon law may also be allowed to reimbursement of their attorney's fee- from owed the above s, a into this clearly shows reimbursement a cost K

This of $ 17,231 Plus sales tax fees and the other related items and attorney bee. figure was surely higher than the $3,306,24 which was offered by k. Therefore this offer made by k did not bar ss claim for a refund. 2. By assuming the amount deduced in Step is to be the correct refundable amount there lies no question of the cost of a service contract. Thus, no logical basis as assumed by the court . Therefore it is not ethical for a party to arque a position for which there is no Single logic basis.