## Facts

- Leonard and Ruth Chmill bought a demonstrator 1984 Ford Tempo from Friendly Ford-Mercury of Janesville on November 26, 1983, with a new-car warranty that expired at 12,000 miles on May 4, 1984.
- Soon after purchase, the vehicle developed a recurring steering “pulling” condition.
- Between purchase and April 2, 1984, the Chmills reported the pulling problem to the dealer at least five times and left the vehicle for repair.
- In December 1984, Ford issued a recall related to rear wheel alignment; the dealer realigned the rear wheels in an attempt to address alignment and tire wear.
- The Chmills also pursued relief through Ford’s consumer appeals process; the dealer disputed the complaint but replaced a defective tie rod, and the Chmills maintained the pulling persisted.
- The Chmills sued the dealer and Ford Motor Company on July 15, 1985, alleging violation of Wisconsin’s Lemon Law, Wis. Stat. § 218.015 (1983–84).
- After trial, the circuit court found the pulling condition was a defect that substantially impaired the vehicle’s use and value, could not be repaired after a reasonable number of attempts, and ordered replacement with a comparable new vehicle (or refund).
- By the last day of trial (June 27, 1986), the Chmills had driven the vehicle about 78,000 miles.

## Issues

1. Whether the vehicle’s “pulling” condition was a statutory “nonconformity” that substantially impaired the vehicle’s use, value, or safety under Wis. Stat. § 218.015(1)(f) (1983–84).
2. Whether the Chmills made a “reasonable attempt to have the vehicle repaired” under Wis. Stat. § 218.015(1)(h) and (2)(a) (1983–84).
3. Whether the manufacturer and dealer were entitled to a “reasonable allowance for use” (a mileage offset) when the remedy ordered was replacement rather than refund.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment ordering replacement of the vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle.
- The pulling condition constituted a “nonconformity” because it substantially impaired use, value, or safety.
- The Chmills satisfied the Lemon Law’s “reasonable attempt to repair” requirement.
- The statute’s “reasonable allowance for use” applies only to the refund remedy, not to the replacement remedy; therefore, no mileage offset was available despite the Chmills’ extensive use.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wis. Stat. § 218.015(1)(f) (1983–84), a recurring condition affecting steering and value may qualify as a “nonconformity” if it substantially impairs the vehicle’s use, value, or safety.
- Under Wis. Stat. § 218.015 (1983–84), repeated repair presentations and continued persistence of the condition can establish a “reasonable attempt to repair.”
- Where the statute provides the manufacturer must either (a) replace the vehicle with a comparable new vehicle or (b) refund the purchase price less a reasonable allowance for use, the “reasonable allowance for use” deduction attaches to the refund option only, not to replacement.
- When statutory language is disjunctive and the use-allowance clause is tied to the refund clause, courts apply the plain meaning rather than adding a use allowance to replacement based on fairness arguments.

## Conclusion

The court held that a persistent steering pull that substantially impairs use, value, or safety triggers Wisconsin’s Lemon Law remedies after reasonable repair attempts, and it affirmed an order requiring replacement without any mileage-based deduction because the statutory use allowance applies only to refunds, not replacements.


Chmill v. Friendly Ford-Mercury of Janesville, Inc., 424 N.W.2d 747 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988)