CACI No. 3202. “Repair Opportunities” Explained
Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition)
Download PDF
3202.“Repair Opportunities” Explained
Each time the [consumer good/new motor vehicle] was given to [name of
defendant] [or its authorized repair facility] for repair counts as an
opportunity to repair, even if [it/they] did not do any repair work.
In determining whether [name of defendant] had a reasonable number of
opportunities to fix the [consumer good/new motor vehicle], you should
consider all the circumstances surrounding each repair visit. [Name of
defendant] [or its authorized repair facility] must have been given at least
two opportunities to fix the [consumer good/new motor vehicle] [unless
only one repair attempt was possible because the [consumer good/new
motor vehicle] was later destroyed or because [name of defendant] [or its
authorized repair facility] refused to attempt the repair].
New September 2003; Revised February 2005, December 2005, June 2006
Directions for Use
This instruction applies only to claims under Civil Code section 1793.2(d) and not
to other claims, such as claims for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability. (See Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 402,
406-407 [7 Cal.Rptr.3d 546].)
The final bracketed portion of the last sentence of this instruction is intended for use
only in cases where the evidence shows that only one repair attempt was possible
because of the subsequent malfunction and destruction of the vehicle or where the
defendant refused to attempt the repair. (See Bishop v. Hyundai Motor America
(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 750 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 134]; Gomez v. Volkswagen of America,
Inc. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 921 [215 Cal.Rptr. 507].)
Sources and Authority
• Replacement or Reimbursement After Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts.
Civil Code section 1793.2(d).
• “[T]he only affirmative step the Act imposes on consumers is to ‘permit[] the
manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the vehicle.’ Whether or not the
manufacturer’s agents choose to take advantage of the opportunity, or are unable
despite that opportunity to isolate and make an effort to repair the problem, are
matters for which the consumer is not responsible.” (Oregel v. American Isuzu
Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1103-1104 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 583],
internal citation omitted.)
• “Section 1793.2(d) requires the manufacturer to afford the specified remedies of
restitution or replacement if that manufacturer is unable to repair the vehicle
‘after a reasonable number of attempts.’ ‘Attempts’ is plural. The statute does not
require the manufacturer to make restitution or replace a vehicle if it has had
476
only one opportunity to repair that vehicle.” (Silvio v. Ford Motor Co. (2003)
109 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1208 [135 Cal.Rptr.2d 846].)
Secondary Sources
2 California UCC Sales & Leases (Cont.Ed.Bar) Prelitigation Remedies, § 17.70
8 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 91, Automobiles: Actions Involving
Defects and Repairs, § 91.15 (Matthew Bender)
20 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 206, Sales, § 206.104 et seq. (Matthew
Bender)
SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT CACI No. 3202
477
© Judicial Council of California.
