This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

This case involves defects in 5.7-liter diesel automobile engines manufactured by D from 1981 through 1985. Ps alleged that D's failure to correct these defects constituted a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability on the engines, hence a remediable violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the Act). The district court dismissed the claims of 130 of the named plaintiffs. The court denied Ps' motion to amend the complaint and name additional claimants. For present purposes, we treat the named plaintiffs in this case as falling into three separate categories: (1) The court separated Ps into three groups: (1) those who alleged that they encountered significant mechanical difficulties with the diesel engines in their D cars before the applicable written warranties had expired; (2) those who alleged that they encountered engine problems only after all express warranties had expired; and (3) those who did not specifically allege that their diesel vehicles were defective, but instead only that the 'poor reputation' of D's diesel products resulted in compensable losses of 'resale value.' The court dismissed all Ps in groups 2 and 3. Ps appealed. Ps asked the appeals court (1) whether D diesel car owners who did not themselves encounter engine difficulties are nevertheless entitled to maintain actions for the recovery of 'lost resale value'; and (2) whether the dismissal of the separate claims of some Ps over D's durational limitations on any and all implied warranties of merchantability were 'unreasonable' and 'unconscionable.' Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.