Lemon Law Case.

The purchaser of a luxury automobile which had numerous problems eventually brought a lemon law action [Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; Civil Code section 1790, et seq]. The car manufacturer served the consumer with an offer to compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which stated: “Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2), MBUSA offers to repurchase Plaintiff’s 2008 [sic] Mercedes-Benz E550 (“E550”) . . . in an undamaged condition, save normal wear and tear, for the amount of the vehicle down payment, any and all payments made, and the amount of Plaintiff’s outstanding loan obligation related to the purchase of the subject vehicle, if any, as well as any collateral charges and incidental costs in accordance with Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2)(B), less a reasonable mileage offset in accordance with Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2)(C), all to be determined by court motion if the parties cannot agree.” Plaintiff rejected the offer. A jury found the manufacturer did not willfully fail to comply with the lemon law act, and plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed in favor of defendant, except with regard to denial of plaintiff’s costs because he did not do better than the California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise, stating: “[Plaintiff] contends the trial court erred in denying a portion of his costs on the grounds that [defendant]’s offer to compromise under section 998 was valid, and that [plaintiff] failed to receive a judgment more favorable than the offer. We agree the trial court erred in finding the section 998 offer valid. . . . We focus on one term in the section 998 offer as particularly undefined. Although for the most part the section 998 offer simply offered to comply with the restitution provision of the Act, it limited compliance to repurchase of the car, “in an undamaged condition, save normal wear and tear.” This condition inserted uncertainty into the offer, which otherwise tracked the language of the Act.” (MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (January 29, 2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1036 [182 Cal.Rptr.3d 691].)