ANSWER KEY
Part 3 Case Study 3
Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0104-PR; Court of
Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-CV 04-0121; Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV02-008392
1. It is true that stare decisis is at the central core of the authority of the judicial branch. However, it
is not always honored as it should be. In this case, even after the decision is rendered by the court, two
mutually exclusive and contradictory tests remain in two cases that linger as valid precedents. Thus,
2. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act was created to deal with the avalanche of complaints from
buyers about the fact that car companies and dealerships were hiding behind warranties and refusing to
follow the rules set down in those warranties should those warranties help the consumer. The objective
3. Lemon laws are state statutes designed to protect consumers who have purchased products
(genrally automobiles) that are not fit to perform the purpose for which they were manufactured. These
4. ”A consumer product is personal property, such as an appliance, a vehicle, a piece of furniture,
and so on, that is used exclusively for personal, family, or household activities. 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).
Consumer is defined as (1) the actual buyer, (2) anyone to whom the product is transferred while the
written warranty is in effect, or (3) any person entitled to enforce the written warranty. 15 U.S.C. §
2301(3). A qualifying sale is a situation in which a person buys a consumer product with no initial
intent to resell that product. Finally, a written warranty is: (A) any written affirmation of fact or written
5. In Christine Seney v. Rent-A-Center, Inc, the tst as based on the fact that the lease could not be the
economic equivalent of a sale. To be the economic equivalent of a sale: (1) the lessee, in negotiating the
6. In Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation, the case was based on determining if any stage in
7. Which of these two tests seems best suited to carry out the will of Congress in relation to
8. The law offers two remedies. One is that the dealer will replace the “lemonized” vehicle for a
properly running vehicle. This involves a change in ownership. The other remedy involves a
9. Both of these remedies require that the consumer have ownership of the car because both
10. Whether these the two cases, Christine Seney v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., and Bill Parrot v. Daimler
END of Part Three End Case