Very Important California Lemon Law Case

A California appellate court case has just been reported which held in December that a purchaser in California who buys a car over the Internet from an out-of-state seller with a website (in this case a used M5), cannot sue the seller in California when the car is not as represented. The case is Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars. [Click to read case.]

Simply advertising and doing business on the Internet, without targeting California residents, is not enough to give California courts jurisdiction over the seller.

Shisler bought his Bimmer from a Florida dealer, so if he's really serious about the sale he gets to hire a Florida lawyer now to sue. Too bad he didn't have the vehicle inspected first.

This case follows a series of holdings around the country dealing with "long arm" jurisdiction over Internet merchants. Generally, unless the Internet business is located within the "forum" state, or does business there, or targets "forum" state residents, jurisdiction will not be found in the "forum" state (the state where the plaintiff brings suit, usually where he lives).

Reply » Very Important California Lemon Law Case

Interesting story....

Thanks for sharing.

Reply » Very Important California Lemon Law Case

Does this apply to consumers buying a car from a dealer over the Internet?

i.e. If I deal with a BMW dealer out of state over the Internet? Or are we just talking about independent dealers?

Reply » Very Important California Lemon Law Case

Nice story. I agree with the ruling. Otherwise, any internet merchant could find themselves having to defend themselves in a faraway state at great expense.

EDIT:
Quote:

Does this apply to consumers buying a car from a dealer over the Internet?

i.e. If I deal with a BMW dealer out of state over the Internet? Or are we just talking about independent dealers?

To me, this is expressly aimed at dealers (for their protection). The article mentions "from an out-of-state seller with a website" which would apply to probably every new car dealer. The point here is that California law does not pertain to a deal conducted with an out-of-state dealer unless the out-of-state dealer specifically focuses on California. You still have rights, but they are those of the home of the dealership, not your residence, and many states don't have favorable-to-consumer lemon laws.

Reply » Very Important California Lemon Law Case

The key to whether there is jurisdiction in one's home state (the "forum" state) is whether the merchant has "purposely availed" itself of the forum state's laws (purposeful availment in legal long arm jurisdiction lingo). Usually this means answering the question whether the merchant has done significant, as opposed to insubstantial, business in the forum state. It can also be whether the merchant is incorporated in the forum state. (All those ads telling people to incorporate in Nevada don't bother to tell them that they can be sued in Nevada, for something that occurred in another state, because the incorporators have "purposely availed" themselves of the advantages, protections and benefits of Nevada law.)

I don't think whether a merchant is an authorized dealer, as opposed to an independent dealer, would be relevant in determining the jurisdiction issue. However, a lot of big dealers do sell in other states, even though they are supposed to be local for auto manufacturer franchise purposes.

We should assume, for the purposes of our dealings on the Internet, that unless they are located in California, or their server is (eBay is a Northern California operation), we are going to have to go to the sellers' home state(s) to sue them. With a purchase over eBay there's an argument we can sue in California because of the location of the server and, possibly, the terms of use (but I haven't read them carefully), but it's just an argument.

Page 1 of 1