“[T]he Act does not require consumers to take any affirmative steps to secure relief for the failure of a manufacturer to service or repair a vehicle to conform to applicable warranties—other than, of course, permitting the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the vehicle . . . . In reality, . . . , the manufacturer seldom on its own initiative offers the consumer the options available under the Act: a replacement vehicle or restitution. Therefore, as a practical matter, the consumer will likely request replacement or restitution. But the consumer’s request is not mandated by any provision in the Act. Rather, the consumer’s request for replacement or restitution is often prompted by the manufacturer’s unforthright approach and stonewalling of fundamental warranty problems.” (Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1050 [104 Cal.Rptr.3d 853], original italics.)(California Jury Instruction CACI 3201)
This effectively means that most often manufacturers evade lemon branding provisions for the purposes of California's jurisdictions.
But does the text in bold (in its context) create any sort of presumption, rebuttable or otherwise, of the same fact that is that manufacturers are presumed to do this when the lemon buyback facts are actually present? Can you use this as a presumption at court?