Stinson

background facts relating to the complaint. Appellant’s husband testified that a week after taking possession of the subject vehicle, he noticed the back-left rim was discolored. After declining the dealership’s offer to repaint the rim at no charge, he had the rim repainted for $125. Two weeks later, he was rear-ended while driving the vehicle. After taking the vehicle to a body shop for repairs, the repairman, a family friend, opined the vehicle had been in a prior accident based on the rear sensors being glued on and the use of spray foam on some plastic parts. Appellant’s husband stated he was happy with the vehicle’s performance and that it has driven “fine.” The motion also asserted that after appellant filed her complaint, respondent conducted an investigation and discovered that the vehicle, a demonstrator, had sustained minor presale lot damage and that in December 2016, it was repaired for a total cost of $890.20. Respondent argued the implied merchantability warranty claim was meritless because appellant’s husband admitted the vehicle was fit for ordinary purposes, which satisfies the implied warranty. It further argued that, pursuant to Vehicle Code sections 9990 and…