Taylor v. Volvo North America Corp.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Marshall v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- 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
- Providence Hospital v. TrulyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
- Seafare Corp. v. Trenor Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.