The complete automotive resource for buyers, sellers, and owners like you.
Car, Truck and SUV Forums at Roadfly
+ Bentley Forums
+ BMW Forums
+ Cadillac Forums
+ Chevrolet Forums
+ Ferrari Forums
+ Jaguar Forums
+ Lamborghini Forums
+ Lotus Forums
+ Mercedes-Benz Forums
+ Maserati Forums
+ MINI Forums
+ Porsche Forums
+ General Discussion
+ Marketplace Forums
Lemon 540iA, Filed Suit 26 June 2000 (archive)

[ Follow Ups ] [ 5-series (E39) Message Board ] [ Msg. Board FAQ ]

Posted by John Sain on July 04, 2000 at 22:21:26:


Plaintiff, )
vs. ) No.
c/o Registered Agent )
Address )
City, State Postal Code )
) Defendant. )


NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, JOHN R. SAIN, III and ELENA SAIN, by and through their attorneys, KROHN & MOSS, LTD., and for their complaint against Defendants, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. and CAIN TOYOTA-BMW, INC., allege and affirmatively statesas follows:
1. Plaintiffs, JOHN R. SAIN, III and ELENA SAIN ("Plaintiffs"), are individual who was at all times relevant hereto resided in the State of Ohio.
2. Defendant, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. ("Manufacturer"), is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Ohio, and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of motor vehicles and related equipment and services. Manufacturer is also in the business of marketing, supplying and selling written warranties to the public at large through a system of authorized dealerships, including CAIN TOYOTA-BMW, INC. ("Lessor"). Manufacturer does business in all counties of the State of Ohio including Portage County.
3. On or about June 28, 1997, Plaintiffs leased from Lessor a 1998 BMW 540i ("540i"), manufactured and/or distributed by Manufacturer, Vehicle Identification Number WBADE6328WBW58565, as reflected in the documents attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4. The price of the 540i, including certain collateral charges, such as registration charges, document fees, sales tax, and finance charges, totaled more than
5. Plaintiffs aver that as a result of ineffective repair attempts made by Manufacturer and/or its agent(s), the 540i cannot be utilized for personal, family and household use as was intended by Plaintiffs at the time of its acquisition.
6. In consideration for the lease of the 540i, Manufacturer issued and supplied to Plaintiffs several written warranties, including a four (4) year or fifty thousand (50,000) mile "bumper-to-bumper" warranty.
7. On or about November 1, 1997, Plaintiffs took possession of the 540i and
shortly thereafter experienced the various defects listed below which substantially impair the use, value and/or safety of the 540i.
8. The nonconformities described below violate the express written warranties issued to Plaintiffs by Manufacturer.
9 . Plaintiffs have delivered the 540i to Manufacturer's authorized servicing dealerships on numerous occasions.
10. Plaintiffs have brought the 540i to Lessor and/or an authorized service dealer of Manufacturer for attempted repairs to various defects and nonconformities, including but not limited to:
a. Defective side mirror;
b. Defective windshield washer;
c. Defective electrical system;
d. Defective sunroof;
e. Defective brakes as evidenced by a pulsation upon application;
f. Defective engine as evidenced by the intermittent illumination of the check engine light, the vehicle shaking and bucking at a cold start, and the vehicle dying down;
g. Defective trunk;
h. Defective exhaust system;
i. Defective fuel pump;
j. Various cosmetic defects as evidenced by an insecure floor mat, loose carpet, a broken ashtray button, and peeling panel; and
k. Defective tank.

11. Plaintiffs have provided Manufacturer sufficient opportunity to repair and/or replace the 540i pursuant to its written warranties.
12. After a reasonable number of attempts to cure the defects in Plaintiffs' 540i, the Manufacturer and its authorized servicing dealerships have been unable and/or have failed to repair the nonconformities or replace the 540i, as provided in the Manufacturer's written warranties.
13. Plaintiffs have justifiably lost confidence in the 540i's safety and reliability, and said nonconformities have substantially impaired the use, value and/or safety of the 540i to Plaintiffs.
14. Said nonconformities could not reasonably have been discovered by Plaintiffs prior to Plaintiffs' acceptance of the 540i.
15. As a result of these defects, Plaintiffs revoked acceptance of the 540i in writing on May 2, 2000. A copy of the revocation of acceptance letter is attached and labeled as Plaintiffs' Exhibit B.
16. At the time of revocation, the 540i was in substantially the same condition as at delivery except for damage caused by its own nonconformities and ordinary wear and tear.
17. Manufacturer and/or Lessor have refused Plaintiffs' revocation of acceptance, and has refused to provide Plaintiffs with the remedies to which Plaintiffs is entitled upon revocation.
18. The 540i remains in a defective and unmerchantable condition, and continues to exhibit some or all of the above mentioned defects which substantially impair its use, value and/or safety.
19. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be financially damaged due to Manufacturer's failure to comply with the provisions of its warranty.

Follow Ups:

[ Follow Ups ] [ 5-series (E39) Message Board ] [ Msg. Board FAQ ]
Questions, comments, or problems, please visit the Roadfly help desk. Logo © 1997 - 2018 Jump Internet Inc. All rights reserved.