Legal Opinion · Dissent

Reeves v. Morelli-Hoskins Ford, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 16, 1992No. 1789Published

1DissentMcEWEN, Judge

The careful analysis and exceptional expression of the view of the majority will likely reveal dissent as improvident, but I, nonetheless, am compelled to this expression since I cannot agree that the Lemon Law definition of “Purchaser” is restricted to individuals who “retain possession and ownership of the vehicle”. Thus, I would vacate the order granting summary judgment and permit appellant to proceed in the trial court to seek refund of “the full purchase price”. The majority notes that this Court has displayed a reluctance to expand the definition of “Purchaser” to include the “lessee”…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. DunsmoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. Industrial Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. HowardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API