legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Duran v. Quantum Auto Sales CA4/3
Eighteen-year-old Stephanie M. Duran purchased a 2003 Audi TT from the Quantum Auto Sales, Inc. (Quantum) for $11,995, using the dealership’s financing services. She later learned the vehicle was actually worth $3,000 due to damages sustained in several undisclosed prior collisions and transmission problems. Before filing a complaint for damages based on the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq., all further statutory references are to the Civil Code), Duran complied with the CLRA’s requirement she notify Quantum about the alleged violations and demand it “correct, repair, replace, or otherwise rectify” those violations. (§ 1782, subd. (a)(1) & (2).) Under the CLRA, this pre-filing notice and demand letter gave Quantum the opportunity to voluntarily remedy its mistake, and if it made an appropriate correction offer, Duran would be precluded from maintaining an “action for damages.” (§ 1782, subd. (b).) In this case, Quantum sent Duran a settl

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale