Legal Question in Consumer Law in North Carolina

This is similar to a question I asked previously, but there has been some clarification on the issue since.

I purchased a new motorcycle from an authorized dealership back in 12/09. In the same trip as picking the bike up, I asked the service center manager for all service records that had been done to the bike. I was given a pile of service records and was on my way. The bike was mint with an exception of a scratch on the frame roughly 1.5" long that I was told was from a prospect buyer sitting on the bike on the floor and running his boot across the frame. At the time, I did not have an issue with the damage being caused by somebodies boot...

Recently, the bike has been given back to the dealership for transmission issues and other misc. work that surfaced. Since 12/09, the dealership has had the bike for roughly 31 business days total (accumulated) (and counting). When I dropped the bike off I asked the counter worker for service records and was given records stating the bike.

The records show that roughly $1700 of damage & repair labor was done to the bike while it was in the dealerships possession, before my purchase; these charges were billed to the dealership, not an individual and include replacement of plastic fairings, part of the engine case, etc. Upon addressing the dealership about this I was told that the bike was hit by a vehicle while parked in the lot (does this count as a vehicle-vehicle collision?). Given the protective measures taken by the manufacture, I find it hard to believe the damage repaired was from the bike being knocked over at a stand-still. Although I realize this did not exceed 25% of the bike's value at the time of the occurrence (although it is roughly 28% of what I paid for the bike a year later), I now question the legitimacy of frame being scratched by someone's boot. If I had known the bike had been damaged to this extent, I would not have purchased the motorcycle, even if the dealership had repaired it to "OEM new".

I have heard rumors that frame damage to a motorcycle can total the bike based on the manufacture and type of bike. Although there was no structural damage, there was powder coating (a processed and heat-treated coating that is considerably more durable than paint) removed from the frame due to this occurrence. Due to the frame being powder-coated, and not painted, for the bike to have been fully restored to "new" condition it would have required removing every part of the bike, powder-coating the frame, and reassembly (touch up paint wouldn't have cut it). This is something that labor alone would have likely placed the bike at a complete loss at the time of occurrence. I feel like if an insurance company were to have taken this damage and calculated a complete repair cost, this bike would have been totaled (assuming labor is calculated into this).

I've been jerked around by this dealership far too much regarding misc. repairs, and now with this new-found information, am ready to proceed legally with this if I have a case. Please advise.

Thanks,

Concerned Motorcyclist


Asked on 6/19/10, 8:43 am

1 Answer from Attorneys
Rachel Hunter

It is unlawful to transfer a vehicle 5 model years old and newer and not disclose the damage IF the damage exceeded 25% of the fair market value of the bike AT the time of the damage. What you paid for the bike later is not relevant.

If I were you, I would take the bike to another dealer and see if they can approximate what the bike new undamaged would be and the price of a bike that you bought with damage. That will decide whether you have any kind of a case or not.

In addition, the bike has been in the shop of over 20 or more business days for a series of problems. This bike seems like it fits the definition of a "lemon" in NC. However, this is not a case where the bike itself is defective but where the bike has problems because of the prior damage. I am not sure if the Lemon Law would apply to these particular facts or no. Might be worth checking into because you can demand replacement of the bike or a refund of your money.

Regarding the frame issue, you need to go on more than just rumor and that is another reason why you should have an independent mechanic look at the bike. If it should have had the power coating and this was not done, did it have to be done? If the bike was a total loss, it would have had a "branded" i.e. "salvage" title. The dealer would not let this happen but if it should have been totaled, that is another argument which you can use in demanding that you paid for a bew bike and that you should have got a new bike, not a damaged and repaired bike.

I would get the bike checked out by an independent mechanic and get a written report from him. then I would contact someone high up the food chain at the dealer (possibly the owner or the general manager) and I would bring in the findings and I would see what the dealer was willing to offer you before I would go to an attorney.

Read more
Answered on 6/20/10, 10:10 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Consumer Law questions and answers in North Carolina