A. The willful misrepresentation of the age or condition of a motor vehicle by any person, including regrooving tires or performing chassis repair, without informing the purchaser of the vehicle that the regrooving or chassis repair has been performed, is an unlawful practice within the meaning of the Unfair Practices Act, unless the alleged misrepresentation is based wholly on repair of damage, the disclosure of which was not required pursuant to Subsection C of this section. The failure to provide an affidavit pursuant to Subsection B of this section when there has been repair for which disclosure is required shall constitute prima facie evidence of willful misrepresentation. B. Except as provided in Subsections C and D of this section, a seller of a motor vehicle shall furnish at the time of sale of a motor vehicle an affidavit that: (1) describes the vehicle; and (2) states to the best of the seller's knowledge whether there has been an alteration or chassis repair due to wreck damage. C. No affidavit shall be required pursuant to this section if the flat rate manual cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than six percent of the sales price of the vehicle. D. In the case of a private-party sale of a vehicle, an affidavit shall be furnished only upon the request of the purchasing party. E. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection D of Section 57-12-10 NMSA 1978, the award of three times actual damages as provided for in that section shall be in lieu of any award of punitive damages based only on those facts constituting the unfair or deceptive trade practice or unconscionable trade practice. F. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. History: 1953 Comp., § 49-15-5.1(B), enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 274, § 1, and recompiled as 1953 Comp., § 49-15-5.1 by Laws 1977, ch. 181, § 4; 1981, ch. 361, § 1; 1991, ch. 232, § 1; 1995, ch. 10, § 1. The 1995 amendment, effective June 16, 1995, substituted "Subsections C and D of this section" for "this subsection" in the introductory paragraph of Subsection B; in Subsection C, substituted the language beginning "the flat rate manual" for "the vehicle is a new vehicle and the cost of the alteration or chassis repair is less than three hundred dollars ($300)" and deleted the former second sentence, defining "new vehicle"; and deleted "to another private party" following "vehicle" and "private" following "purchasing" in Subsection D. The 1991 amendment, effective June 14, 1991, in Subsection A, added the language beginning with "unless the alleged misrepresentation" at the end of the first sentence and added the second sentence; added Subsections C and E; redesignated Subsection C as Subsection D and Subsection D as Subsection F; and made a minor stylistic change in Subsection B. "Altered" construed. — Within the context of Subsection B, goods are "altered" if, as measured against the reasonable expectations of the consumer, the characteristics or value of the motor vehicle are affected in a meaningful way. Hale v. Basin Motor Co. , 1990-NMSC-068, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006. "Due to wreck damage" construed. — The phrase "due to wreck damage" in Subsection B(2) modifies only "chassis repair" and not "alteration." Hale v. Basin Motor Co. , 1990-NMSC-068, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006. Alteration found. — Evidence showing that right front fender was replaced, right door frame was straightened, holes were drilled in the door panel to pull out a dent, sheet metal in the damaged area was ground down and resurfaced with body filler, and the damaged area was repainted was sufficient to support finding that vehicle was altered within the meaning of Subsection B. Hale v. Basin Motor Co. , 1990-NMSC-068, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006. Arbitration agreement that barred punitive damages did not constitute an unconscionable contract term. — Where plaintiff purchased a 2018 chevrolet vehicle from defendants, and in the process of purchasing the vehicle, plaintiff signed an order agreement and bill of sale, which contained an arbitration provision and a damages limitation provision stating that the dealer was not liable for punitive damages arising out of the sale or use of the vehicle, and where plaintiff filed a complaint in district court, alleging that in the process of purchasing the vehicle, the dealership failed to accurately convey the car's prior damage in order to sell a defective product, and where defendants moved to compel arbitration under the agreement, and where plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced because the contract was unconscionable, primarily because the punitive damages limitation provision restricts access to statutorily mandated treble damages under the Unfair Practice Act provided by the legislature, the district court did not err in its determination that the contract and the arbitration provision must be enforced, because although the damages provision was facially one-sided in that it disclaimed any punitive damages against the car dealer only, the contract was not unconscionable because the only damages the provision at issue excluded were common law punitive damages not granted by the legislature, leaving the statutory treble damages available to plaintiff. Rojas v. Reliable Chevrolet (NM), LLC , 2024-NMCA-003. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Liability on implied warranties in sale of used motor vehicle, 47 A.L.R.5th 677.
‹ Prev All New Mexico sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.