Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Dunsmore
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
BECK, Judge:
The issue in this case is whether the Lemon Law and a warranty claim can be asserted by the purchaser of an automobile as defenses in a replevin action brought by the company financing the purchase of the car. We find they cannot and we therefore vacate the order of the trial court.
Appellant Ford Motor Credit Company (“FMCC”), the assignee of an installment contract for the purchase of an automobile, filed a Complaint in Replevin and a Motion for Writ of Seizure after the appellees, a Mr. and Mrs. Duns-more (“Dunsmores”), failed to make the requisite payments under the contract.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Rieck Investment Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Hall's Safe Co. v. WalenkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Lee-Strauss Co. v. KellySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Koehring Company v. VentrescaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Hahn v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. CaiazzoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Reeves v. Morelli-Hoskins Ford, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Singer v. Land Rover North America, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
- Harmon v. Concord Volkswagen, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1991
- Laurel Bank v. Karstetter, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Blair County1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.