Chrysler Credit Corporation v. James E. Copley and Cynthia R. Copley, No. 21235 (W. Va. February 18, 1993) (Miller, J.): 189 W.Va. 90, 428 S.E.2d 313:
Where consumers sought to counterclaim against finance company under lemon law, the Court held (1) the applicable time period for filing a "lemon law" action under W. Va. Code § 46A-6A-4 is "within one year of the expiration of the express warranty term;" (2) a consumer can assert a defective product claim as a defense in a collection action pursuant to W. Va. Code § 46A-2-102, et seq.; and (3) such counterclaim can be asserted without regarding to any statute of limitations.
James H. Reed v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, Inc., Nos. 20924 and 20925 (W. Va. December 18, 1992) (Workman, J.): 188 W.Va. 747, 426 S.E.2D 539:
Reversing a $375,000 verdict in favor of a repair technician who was discharged after he submitted a warranty claim on an air conditioner he was allegedly sold for parts, the Court held that (1) where a retaliatory discharge claim is based upon a warranty claim, the employee has no cause of action pursuant to the Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code §§ 46A-6-101, et seq., unless the employee can demonstrate that a valid warranty was created at the time of the sale of the goods and (2) an express warrant is created, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 46-2-313(1), only when the affirmation of fact, promise, or description of the goods is part of the basis of the bargain made by the seller to the buyer about the goods being sold.
Richard W. Adams and Sandra Adams. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., No. 19041 and Richard W. Adams and Sandra Adams v. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., No. 19130 (W. Va. November 3, 1989) (Brotherton, C.J.): 182 W.Va. 234, 387 S.E.2d 288:
In a case under our State's "Lemon Law," the Court held: (1) if a buyer can show a defect or condition which "substantially impairs use or market value," attention then shifts to whether the buyer has afforded the seller a "reasonable number of attempts," to conform the vehicle to applicable express warranties; (2) if a defect is "likely to cause death or serious bodily injury," the buyer need afford the seller only "one failed attempt" within either the express warranty period or one year from delivery, whichever is earlier, before the manufacturer becomes obligated to replaced the flawed vehicle; (3) if a defect is "not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury," the buyer need afford the seller only three failed attempts, or, in the alternative, if the vehicle is out of service for a cumulative total of thirty days or more within the express warranty period or one year from delivery, whichever is earlier, the manufacturer becomes obligated to replace the flawed vehicle; and, (4) a "service contract" which does not provide for fitness for use or the vehicle's condition is not a "warranty" under W. Va. Code § 46A-6A-1, et seq. The Court rejected the buyers' claim for "post-verdict damages" as the result of their continued obligation to make car payments during the pendency of the appeal while their vehicle was inoperable, holding that post-judgment interest was adequate compensation for amounts expended during the pendency of the appeal.