EnglishEspañol
North Carolina flag

North Carolina

Ley del Limón de Carolina del Norte (2026): Cómo Calificar y Obtener un Reembolso

Ley del Limón de Carolina del Norte (2026): Cómo Calificar y Obtener un Reembolso

Preguntas frecuentes

¿Cuántos intentos de reparación activan la presunción de la ley del limón de Carolina del Norte?

La presunción de la ley del limón aplica cuando el mismo defecto se ha presentado para reparación cuatro o más veces sin ser corregido. Alternativamente, si el vehículo ha estado fuera de servicio durante 20 o más días hábiles acumulados durante cualquier período de 12 meses de la garantía, la presunción también aplica. Ambos umbrales deben ocurrir dentro de los primeros 24 meses o 24,000 millas.

¿La ley del limón de Carolina del Norte cubre los vehículos arrendados?

Sí. La ley del limón de Carolina del Norte cubre los vehículos motorizados nuevos que se venden o arriendan en el estado. Un consumidor que arrienda un vehículo nuevo tiene los mismos derechos bajo el estatuto que un comprador, incluido el derecho a elegir un vehículo de reemplazo o un reembolso.

¿Debo usar el programa de arbitraje del fabricante antes de acudir a los tribunales?

Si el fabricante tiene un procedimiento informal de resolución de disputas que cumple con los requisitos federales, debe usar ese programa antes de presentar una demanda. Sin embargo, la decisión del arbitraje es vinculante únicamente para el fabricante. Si no está satisfecho con el resultado, aún puede llevar su caso a los tribunales.

¿Cómo se calcula la deducción por compensación razonable de uso?

La deducción equivale al precio de compra multiplicado por el número de millas conducidas dividido entre 120,000. El millaje se cuenta únicamente hasta la fecha del tercer intento de reparación del mismo defecto o el vigésimo día hábil acumulado en que el vehículo estuvo fuera de servicio, lo que ocurra primero. Las millas conducidas después de ese punto no se cuentan en su contra.

¿Puedo recuperar honorarios de abogados y daños triples en un caso de la ley del limón de Carolina del Norte?

Sí. Si un tribunal determina que el fabricante se negó injustificadamente a cumplir con la ley del limón, el consumidor puede recibir daños triples (tres veces los daños reales). El tribunal también puede otorgar honorarios razonables de abogados a la parte ganadora. Estas disposiciones se encuentran en N.C.G.S. 20-351.8.

Actualizaciones

Added the requirement to give a North Carolina manufacturer written notice of intent to sue at least 10 days before filing (N.C.G.S. 20-351.7) and corrected two source-link labels.

Verificado de forma independiente contra las fuentes primarias citadas; ley aplicable revisada en busca de cambios recientes

Ley aplicable revisada en busca de cambios recientes

Revisado y aprobado por un editor

La ley detrás de este artículo

Este artículo se apoya en 7 disposiciones legales conservadas en nuestro propio registro jurídico, cada una obtenida de la fuente oficial. Toque una sección para leer el texto vigente.

United States Code Title 15

§ 2301DefinitionsVigentecitada en 39 de nuestros artículos
For the purposes of this chapter: The term “consumer product” means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed). The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade Commission. The term “consumer” means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract). The term “supplier” means any person engaged in the business of making a consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers. The term “warrantor” means any supplier or other person who gives or offers to give a written warranty or who is or may be obligated under an implied warranty.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-28 · Lea la sección completa en uscode.house.gov

Citada en 1,671 opiniones judiciales1970s: 111980s: 1361990s: 1462000s: 4032010s: 2882020s: 687Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2026

Casos destacados: John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Company (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1986, 807 F.2d 1000) · Birdsong v. Apple, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2009, 590 F.3d 955) · Robert E. Kelly Virginia L. Kelly v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2004, 377 F.3d 1034)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 20: Motor Vehicles.

§ 20-351.1DefinitionsVigente
As used in this Article: (1) "Consumer" means the purchaser, other than for purposes of resale, or lessee from a commercial lender, lessor, or from a manufacturer or dealer, of a motor vehicle, and any other person entitled by the terms of an express warranty to enforce the obligations of that warranty. (2) "Manufacturer" means any person or corporation, resident or nonresident, who manufactures or assembles or imports or distributes new motor vehicles which are sold in the State of North Carolina. (3) "Motor vehicle" includes a motor vehicle as defined in G.S. 20-4.01 that is sold or leased in this State, but does not include "house trailer" as defined in G.S. 20-4.01 or any motor vehicle that weighs more than 10,000 pounds. (4) "New motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle for which a certificate of origin, as required by G.S. 20-52.1 or a similar requirement in another state, has never been supplied to a consumer, or which a manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer states in writing is being sold as a new motor vehicle.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-29 · Lea la sección completa en ncleg.gov

Citada en 3 opiniones judicialesAplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 1994

Casos destacados: Taylor v. Volvo North America Corp. (Supreme Court of North Carolina 1994, 339 N.C. 238) · Anders v. Hyundai Motor America Corp. (Court of Appeals of North Carolina 1991, 104 N.C. App. 61)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

§ 20-351.3Replacement or refund; disclosure requirementVigente
(a) When the consumer is the purchaser or a person entitled by the terms of the express warranty to enforce the obligations of the warranty, if the manufacturer is unable, after a reasonable number of attempts, to conform the motor vehicle to any express warranty by repairing or correcting, or arranging for the repair or correction of, any defect or condition or series of defects or conditions which substantially impair the value of the motor vehicle to the consumer, and which occurred no later than 24 months or 24,000 miles following original delivery of the vehicle, the manufacturer shall, at the option of the consumer, replace the vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle or accept return of the vehicle from the consumer and refund to the consumer the following: (1) The full contract price including, but not limited to, charges for undercoating, dealer preparation and transportation, and installed options, plus the non-refundable portions of extended warranties and service contracts; (2) All collateral charges, including but not limited to, sales tax, license and registration fees, and similar government charges; (3) All finance charges incurred by the consumer after he…

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-29 · Lea la sección completa en ncleg.gov

Citada en 13 opiniones judiciales1990s: 62000s: 32010s: 22020s: 2Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2020

Casos destacados: Buford v. General Motors Corp. (Supreme Court of North Carolina 1994, 339 N.C. 396) · Taylor v. Volvo North America Corp. (Supreme Court of North Carolina 1994, 339 N.C. 238) · Anders v. Hyundai Motor America Corp. (Court of Appeals of North Carolina 1991, 104 N.C. App. 61)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

§ 20-351.5PresumptionVigente
(a) It is presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties if: (1) The same nonconformity has been presented for repair to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer four or more times but the same nonconformity continues to exist; or (2) The vehicle was out of service to the consumer during or while awaiting repair of the nonconformity or a series of nonconformities for a cumulative total of 20 or more business days during any 12-month period of the warranty, provided that the consumer has notified the manufacturer directly in writing of the existence of the nonconformity or series of nonconformities and allowed the manufacturer a reasonable period, not to exceed 15 calendar days, in which to correct the nonconformity or series of nonconformities.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-29 · Lea la sección completa en ncleg.gov

Citada en 6 opiniones judiciales1990s: 32000s: 02010s: 12020s: 2Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2023

Casos destacados: Anders v. Hyundai Motor America Corp. (Court of Appeals of North Carolina 1991, 104 N.C. App. 61) · Hardison v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (Court of Appeals of North Carolina 2013, 226 N.C. App. 22) · Taylor v. Volvo North America Corp. (Supreme Court of North Carolina 1994, 339 N.C. 238)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

§ 20-351.7Civil action by the consumerVigente
A consumer injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of this Article may bring a civil action against the manufacturer; provided, however, the consumer has given the manufacturer written notice of his intent to bring an action against the manufacturer at least 10 days prior to filing such suit. Nothing in this section shall prevent a manufacturer from requiring a consumer to utilize an informal settlement procedure prior to litigation if that procedure substantially complies in design and operation with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 USC § 2301 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder, and that requirement is written clearly and conspicuously, in the written warranty and any warranty instructions provided to the consumer.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-29 · Lea la sección completa en ncleg.gov

Citada en 3 opiniones judicialesAplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2020

Casos destacados: Taylor v. Volvo North America Corp. (Supreme Court of North Carolina 1994, 339 N.C. 238) · Alexander v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. (North Carolina Business Court 2004, 2004 NCBC 2) · Fairchild v. Kubota Tractor Corporation (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 2020)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

§ 20-351.8RemediesVigente
In any action brought under this Article, the court may grant as relief: (1) A permanent or temporary injunction or other equitable relief as the court deems just; (2) Monetary damages to the injured consumer in the amount fixed by the verdict. Such damages shall be trebled upon a finding that the manufacturer unreasonably refused to comply with G.S. 20-351.2 or G.S. 20-351.3. The jury may consider as damages all items listed for refund under G.S. 20-351.3; (3) A reasonable attorney's fee for the attorney of the prevailing party, payable by the losing party, upon a finding by the court that: a. The manufacturer unreasonably failed or refused to fully resolve the matter which constitutes the basis of such action; or b. The party instituting the action knew, or should have known, the action was frivolous and malicious.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-29 · Lea la sección completa en ncleg.gov

Citada en 6 opiniones judiciales1990s: 42000s: 12010s: 1Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2013

Casos destacados: Buford v. General Motors Corp. (Supreme Court of North Carolina 1994, 339 N.C. 396) · Taylor v. Volvo North America Corp. (Supreme Court of North Carolina 1994, 339 N.C. 238) · Hardison v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (Court of Appeals of North Carolina 2013, 226 N.C. App. 22)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 75: Monopolies, Trusts and Consumer Protection.

§ 75-1.1Methods of competition, acts and practices regulated; legislative policyVigentecitada en 2 de nuestros artículos
(a) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful. (b) For purposes of this section, "commerce" includes all business activities, however denominated, but does not include professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession. (c) Nothing in this section shall apply to acts done by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of a newspaper, periodical or radio or television station, or other advertising medium in the publication or dissemination of an advertisement, when the owner, agent or employee did not have knowledge of the false, misleading or deceptive character of the advertisement and when the newspaper, periodical or radio or television station, or other advertising medium did not have a direct financial interest in the sale or distribution of the advertised product or service. (d) Any party claiming to be exempt from the provisions of this section shall have the burden of proof with respect to such claim.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-29 · Lea la sección completa en ncleg.gov

Citada en 1,622 opiniones judiciales1970s: 201980s: 1441990s: 1652000s: 3202010s: 4842020s: 489Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2026

Casos destacados: Dalton v. Camp (Supreme Court of North Carolina 2001, 353 N.C. 647) · Harris v. NCNB National Bank of North Carolina (Court of Appeals of North Carolina 1987, 85 N.C. App. 669) · Marshall v. Miller (Supreme Court of North Carolina 1981, 302 N.C. 539)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

Busque en nuestro registro completo de la ley de EE. UU.: 2.1 millones de secciones, todos los estados y la ley federal

Fuentes y referencias

  1. N.C.G.S. Capítulo 20, Artículo 15A - Ley de Garantías para Vehículos Motorizados Nuevos (Texto Completo)(ncleg.gov).gov
  2. N.C.G.S. 20-351.1 - Definiciones(ncleg.gov).gov
  3. N.C.G.S. 20-351.3 - Reemplazo o Reembolso; Requisitos de Divulgación(ncleg.gov).gov
  4. N.C.G.S. 20-351.5 - Presunción de un Número Razonable de Intentos(ncleg.gov).gov
  5. N.C.G.S. 20-351.7 - Acción Civil por el Consumidor(ncleg.gov).gov
  6. N.C.G.S. 20-351.8 - Recursos(ncleg.gov).gov
  7. Fiscal General de Carolina del Norte - Información sobre la Ley del Limón(ncdoj.gov).gov
  8. Fiscal General de NC - Presentar una Queja del Consumidor(ncdoj.gov).gov
  9. N.C.G.S. 75-1.1 - Prácticas Comerciales Desleales y Engañosas(ncleg.gov).gov
  10. Programa de Resolución de Disputas BBB AUTO LINE(bbbprograms.org)
Compartir: