## Facts

- Dale and Karen Liles bought a new motor home manufactured by Damon Corporation from an Oregon dealer in December 2002.
- The motor home developed persistent water-leak defects soon after purchase.
- The Lileses repeatedly contacted Damon by phone about the defects.
- At Damon’s direction, the Lileses brought the motor home to the selling dealer multiple times and to another repair facility authorized by Damon.
- Repair attempts did not correct the recurring water intrusion.
- The Lileses’ attorney later sent Damon a letter describing the defects and summarizing prior repair efforts.
- Shortly after the letter, the Lileses filed an action seeking a statutory remedy under Oregon’s motor-vehicle “lemon law,” ORS 646A.400–.418.
- The trial court found Damon received adequate written notice and had ample opportunity to correct the defects, and entered judgment for the Lileses.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the statute required written notice first and a post-notice opportunity to repair before suit.

## Issues

1. Whether ORS 646A.402(3) requires that “direct written notification” must occur before the manufacturer’s statutory “opportunity to correct” and that the repair opportunity must occur after written notice.
2. Whether ORS 646A.402(3) imposes strict, sequential pre-suit conditions that bar relief if the consumer files suit without providing a post-notice repair opportunity.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the Lileses.
- ORS 646A.402(3) requires both (1) direct written notification and (2) an opportunity to correct, but it does not impose a mandatory sequence or require a post-notice repair opportunity before filing suit.
- Authorized repair attempts occurring before written notice may satisfy the “opportunity to correct” requirement when the manufacturer had a fair chance to fix the defect.
- The trial court’s findings supported that Damon had adequate written notice and ample opportunity to repair; therefore, statutory prerequisites for relief were met.

## Legal Principles

- Under ORS 646A.402(3), a lemon-law remedy is available when the manufacturer has received direct written notification of the defect and has had an opportunity to correct it.
- The statute’s text does not require that the opportunity to correct occur only after written notice, nor does it require completion of a post-notice repair opportunity as a pre-suit condition.
- Courts focus on whether the manufacturer actually had a fair chance to repair the defect, including through pre-notice repair efforts directed or authorized by the manufacturer.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court held that Oregon’s lemon law does not impose rigid, sequential pre-suit steps requiring written notice followed by a post-notice repair opportunity; rather, the consumer must show written notification and that the manufacturer had a real opportunity to correct, which may be satisfied by multiple authorized repair attempts occurring before written notice.


Liles v. Damon Corp., 198 P.3d 926 (Or. 2008)