Boat lemon law claims- common features

How do boat dealers and manufacturers approach claims. A summary.

1. Disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer. If boat companies show limited competence for repair and design, their disclaimers are usually superb, and they attempt to make them the focus of the litigation.

2. Repair boat owners need to document the boat's availability for repair. The disclaimers can be challenged on the ground that the repair or replace remedy exclusive remedy failed of essential purpose; that is, if the boat cannot be fixed the repair remedy is useless. A typical case is Palmucci v. Brunswick, Corp 311 N.J. Super. 607 (App. Div. 1998). The consumer does not get to determine the form of repair.

"When plaintiff returned to Sanborn, he was advised that Sanborn intended to replace the heads. Plaintiff informed Sanborn he did not want the boat repaired. He explained that he had bought a new engine and he wanted a new engine. Plaintiff testified that Sanborn informed him that Brunswick would not replace the engine... Since plaintiff did not abide by the requirements of the warranty in that he did not allow the manufacturer to use the remedy the warranty permitted, he was not entitled to recovery under his breach of warranty claim.

The court explained

The provisions permitting revocation of acceptance are inapplicable where the terms of a "warranty limit the purchaser's remedies..., because defendants never had a chance to try to repair the engine, we cannot infer that the defect, although not identified, was serious and incapable of repair. Thus, it is not possible to conclude that the defect caused a substantial impairment in value under N.J.S.A. 12A:2-608(1)... see also Herbstman v. Eastman Kodak Co., 68 N.J. 1, 9 (1975) ("The requirement that there must be substantial impairment of value before the buyer may revoke acceptance precludes revocation for trivial defects or defects which may be easily corrected."). Further, defendant's warranty did not fail of its essential purpose because defendant was not allowed the opportunity to repair the engine. See N.J.S.A. 12A:2-719(2); Jankowitz, supra, 216 N.J. Super. at 329 ("[T]he exclusive remedy of repair and replacement of defective parts fails of its essential purpose if, after numerous attempts to repair, the [boat] did not operate as a new [boat] should free of defects.").

Thus, the plaintiff in a boat case must clearly document the attempts at repair and the availability of the boat.


Law Offices of Howard A. Gutman
230 Route 206, Suite 307, Flanders, New Jersey 07836
(973) 598-1980, E-mail Howian@aol.com Fax (973) 598-1982
New York Office, 305 Madison Avenue, Suite 449 New York, New York 10165

*The attached along with other posts is intended to provide general information, not an assessment or opinion on any specific case. Laws must vary from state to state.