Demand Letter

Dear Shakyside Motors:

Please be informed that Mr. and Mrs. Henry Haskell have retained this Law Office in regards to their claim against you and your business.

This letter is sent to you in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as found in the Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 93A. Herewith, demand upon you for relief under the pursuant statue is made.

The purpose of this correspondence is to encourage you to provide fair and just relief to said Haskell in order that all the parties may avoid litigation as provided for under the above said statute. Certainly, this is a matter that should not have to be litigated and Mr. and Mrs. Haskell consider some of your salespersons to be friends.

In February of this year, you were the salesman that sold a car to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Haskell. As well, you are in the custody of funds, belonging to the Haskells’ that arose from this tentative transaction.

It has become apparent that there is a valid litigation that could be charged against your dealership in regards to possible non-disclosures as made to the said Haskell and the seller.

The Massachusetts Lemon Law, M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 7N1/2, protects consumers who have serious defects in their new cars. The law defines a lemon as a new motor vehicle that has a defect that substantially impairs the use, market value, or safety of the vehicle, and which has not been repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. If a substantial defect still exists or recurs after a reasonable number of repair attempts, the consumer has the right to a refund or a replacement vehicle. Keep in mind that not all car problems are serious enough to qualify under the Lemon Law.

We believe that the car purchased from Shakyside Motors on February 12th 2002 is a "lemon" under the Massachusetts Lemon Law (Massachusetts General Laws; Ch. 90 Sec. 7N1/2). I am hereby making a written demand for relief under the Lemon Law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Ch. 93A, Sec.9.

They purchased a 1982 Ford Pinto on February 12th 2002 from your dealership. Since they bought the vehicle, they have had many defects like gas leaking everywhere, bad brakes, car doesn’t start in cold weather, and transmission belts need to be replaced.

The vehicle has been out of service for three weeks and for three weeks the Haskells’ have attempted to call your offices and have the car repaired. The Haskells’ are also protected by the Consumer Protection Act.

The Consumer Protection Act prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. As defined by the Supreme Judicial Court in Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney General, 380 Mass 762, 407 NE2d 297 (1980), a practice is deceptive if it would reasonably be found to have caused a person to have acted differently then he otherwise would have. Further, a practice is unfair if it falls within an established concept of unfairness, is unethical or oppressive, or causes injury to the consumer. Lastly, the Attorney General has promulgated certain regulations declaring certain acts or practices unfair or deceptive under Regulation 940 CMR 3.16, which reads in part:

1. If the act or practice is oppressive in any respect; or

2. Any person fails to disclose to a buyer or the prospective buyer any fact, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer not to enter into