Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Volvo North America Corp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 20, 1992No. 9118SC753Published

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

Defendant raises four assignments of error. After careful consideration, we affirm.

I

First, defendant argues that plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support his recovery. We disagree.

The New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act (the Act), Article 15A of Chapter 20, establishes a private remedy for consumers. G.S. §§ 20-351 — 20-351.10 (1989); see Anders v. Hyundai Motor America Corp., 104 N.C. App. 61, 64, 407 S.E.2d 618, 620, disc. rev. denied, 330 N.C. 440, 412 S.E.2d 69 (1991). Under the Act, a consumer may seek recovery from an automobile manufacturer for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Marshall v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. The Flintkote Company, a Corporation v. Elmer Lysfjord and Walter R. Waldron, Doing Business as Aabeta Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
  3. Providence Hospital v. TrulyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
  4. Seafare Corp. v. Trenor Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  5. Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API