Almost everyone — buyers, sellers, and a fair number of lawyers — reads Minnesota’s used-car warranty statute as a sliding scale that runs out at the bottom of the market. Newer car, more protection. Older car, less. Beater on a corner lot with 150,000 miles on it, sold for $2,400 with “AS IS” stamped across the purchase agreement, no protection at all.
That is not what Minn. Stat. § 325F.662 says. Since 2023, the statute reads closer to the opposite.
A twelve-year-old car with 150,000 miles, sold for $2,400 by an independent used-car lot, carries a mandatory express warranty. The identical car with 60,000 miles on it, sold for the same $2,400, carries none. And the same 150,000-mile car sold by a franchised new-car dealership carries none either.
Three cars, three different answers, and the one that looks worst on paper is the one the statute protects. That inversion is deliberate, it is recent, and it is the single most useful thing to know about this section. The rest of the statute is nearly as counterintuitive: the warranty exists whether or not the dealer ever wrote one, whether or not the paperwork says “as is,” and whether or not the seller bothered to get a dealer license.
This article works from the statute’s text. The appellate case law construing § 325F.662 is thin enough that the text is where the answers are — so the operative language is quoted below rather than paraphrased.
For the new-car side of the problem — the manufacturer-facing Lemon Law in § 325F.665 and revocation of acceptance under the UCC — see Revoking Acceptance in Minnesota. This piece is about the dealer-facing statute, and it goes past the summary in that article.
Why does a 150,000-mile car get a warranty a 60,000-mile car does not?
Because of a carve-back the Legislature added in 2023, and because of how it interacts with two exclusions that have been in the statute for decades.
Start with the durations. Subdivision 2, paragraph (a), sets three minimum terms, keyed to the odometer at sale. Under 36,000 miles, the warranty must run at least 60 days or 2,500 miles, whichever comes first. At 36,000 miles or more but under 75,000, at least 30 days or 1,000 miles, whichever comes first. At 75,000 miles or more but under 200,000 — and here is the new part — at least 15 days or 500 miles, whichever comes first, unless the vehicle is sold by a new motor vehicle dealer. Those are the three tiers, in that order, and there is no fourth: at 200,000 miles the statute stops entirely.
That third tier was added by Laws 2023, ch. 57, art. 4, § 13. Before it, the statute quit at 75,000 miles.
Now the exclusions. Subdivision 3 lists nine categories of vehicle a dealer need not warrant. Two of them are the ones that would ordinarily kill a claim on an old cheap car:
(1) except for a used motor vehicle described in subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (3), sold for a total cash sale price of less than $3,000 …
(5) except for a used motor vehicle described in subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (3), that is eight years of age or older, as calculated from the first day in January of the designated model year of the vehicle …
The bolded phrases were also added in 2023, by § 14 of the same article. They mean that the price floor and the age cap do not apply to a vehicle in the top mileage tier.
Run the three cars:
- 150,000 miles, twelve model years old, $2,400, independent lot. It is a clause (3) vehicle. The price exclusion does not reach it. The age exclusion does not reach it. It gets 15 days or 500 miles.
- 60,000 miles, twelve model years old, $2,400. It is a clause (2) vehicle, so the carve-backs do not apply to it. It is excluded twice over — under $3,000 and eight-plus model years — and gets nothing.
- 150,000 miles, sold by a franchised new-car dealer. Clause (3) exempts new motor vehicle dealers by its terms, so the car is not “described in subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (3).” The carve-backs in subdivision 3 therefore do not reach it, and the ordinary price and age exclusions swallow it.
Neither of the 2023 amendments carried its own effective-date clause, so the general rule in Minn. Stat. § 645.02 supplied it. Chapter 57 was an act with appropriation items — article 1 appropriates for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2025 — and § 645.02 provides that “[a]n appropriation act or an act having appropriation items enacted finally at any session of the legislature takes effect at the beginning of the first day of July next following its final enactment, unless a different date is specified in the act.”
Which dealers does this actually bind?
More than you would guess from the word “dealer,” and fewer at the top of the tier than you would guess.
“Dealer” is defined in subdivision 1, paragraph (b), as a motor vehicle dealer or lessor under § 168.27, subds. 2, 3, and 4 — “whether licensed or unlicensed … who is engaged in the business of selling or arranging the sale of used motor vehicles in this state.” The unlicensed-seller language does real work. A curbstoner running vehicles through a personal name to avoid licensure does not thereby escape § 325F.662; he escapes the licensing statute and keeps the warranty obligation.
The definition then carves out four categories of seller: a bank or financial institution; a business selling a used vehicle to its own employee; a lessor selling a leased vehicle to that vehicle’s lessee, or to a family member or employee of the lessee; and a licensed auctioneer selling vehicles at auction where, in the ordinary course of the auctioneer’s business, vehicle sales are incidental to the sale of other property.
The “new motor vehicle dealer” exemption in the top tier points at § 168.27, subd. 2 — the franchised dealer license. Subdivision 2 describes a licensee who “may sell, broker, wholesale, or auction … new motor vehicles covered by the franchise and any used motor vehicles.” So a franchised store selling used inventory is exempt from the 75,000-plus tier and only that tier; below 75,000 miles it is bound like anyone else.
Vehicle scope. “Motor vehicle” means a passenger automobile under § 168.002, subd. 24, “including pickup trucks and vans.” Subdivision 24 defines a passenger automobile as a vehicle “designed and used for carrying not more than 15 individuals, including the driver,” and excludes motorcycles, motor scooters, buses, school buses, and commuter vans. So motorcycles are out of § 325F.662 at the definitional stage, not the exclusion stage.
The remaining exclusions in subdivision 3 apply across all tiers: diesel engines; gross weight over 9,000 pounds as defined in § 168.002, subd. 13; custom-built or show/racing vehicles; 200,000 miles or more at sale; vehicles from a manufacturer that never built more than 10,000 vehicles in a year; vehicles not built to the federal emission and safety standards in force at manufacture; and vehicles whose title bears a “salvage” brand under § 168A.151.
Does the warranty exist if the dealer never gave me one?
Yes. This is the provision that decides most disputes, and it is one sentence long.
Subd. 5. Warranty automatic. If a dealer fails to give the express warranty required by this section, the dealer nevertheless is considered to have given the express warranty as a matter of law.
Nothing turns on whether the buyer was handed a warranty document, whether the buyer read one, or whether the buyer knew the statute existed. If the vehicle is covered, the warranty is in the deal.
The paperwork does not undo it either. There is exactly one way to waive coverage, and it is in subdivision 4:
When purchasing a used motor vehicle, a consumer may waive the express warranty for a covered part if:
(1) the dealer discloses in a clear and conspicuous typed or printed statement on the front of the Buyers Guide that the waived part contains a malfunction, defect, or repair problem; and
(2) the consumer circles this typed or printed statement and signs the Buyers Guide next to the circled statement.
Read what that requires. The waiver is part-by-part, not vehicle-wide. It requires an affirmative disclosure that the specific part is already bad. It has to be on the front of the Buyers Guide, not in the purchase agreement. And it takes two separate physical acts by the buyer — circling the statement and signing next to the circle. A blanket “AS IS — NO WARRANTY” box, a bold-face disclaimer in the retail installment contract, and an initial line on page three are none of those things.
Can a Minnesota dealer sell a covered car “as is” at all?
Not under federal law either, and this is the part dealers most often get wrong.
Minnesota does not write the used-car window sticker; the Federal Trade Commission does, and § 325F.662 incorporates it twice. Subdivision 2, paragraph (h), requires that “[t]he terms of the express warranty, including the duration of the warranty and the parts covered, must be fully, accurately, and conspicuously disclosed by the dealer on the front of the Buyers Guide.” Subdivision 6 goes further: in selling a used vehicle and in providing the statutory warranty, “a dealer shall comply in all respects” with the FTC’s Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule, 16 C.F.R. part 455.
The Rule anticipates exactly Minnesota’s situation:
If your State law limits or prohibits “as is” sales of vehicles, that State law overrides this part and this rule does not give you the right to sell “as is.” In such States, the heading “As Is—No Dealer Warranty” and the paragraph immediately accompanying that phrase must be deleted from the form, and the following heading and paragraph must be substituted …
16 C.F.R. § 455.2(b)(1)(ii). The substituted disclosure is the “IMPLIED WARRANTIES ONLY” block.
So for a vehicle § 325F.662 covers, checking the “As Is — No Dealer Warranty” box on the Buyers Guide is not merely ineffective under state law. It is the wrong form under the federal rule, and § 455.1(c) makes failure to comply with §§ 455.2 through 455.5 a violation of the Rule.
And the window form beats the contract:
(b) Incorporated into contract. The information on the final version of the window form is incorporated into the contract of sale for each used vehicle you sell to a consumer. Information on the window form overrides any contrary provisions in the contract of sale.
16 C.F.R. § 455.3(b). Section 455.4 adds that the dealer “may not make any statements, oral or written, or take other actions which alter or contradict the disclosures required by §§ 455.2 and 455.3.”
The practical sequence is worth stating plainly. Get the Buyers Guide. Compare it to the purchase agreement. Where they conflict, the Buyers Guide controls as a matter of federal law, and the state statute supplies the minimum terms the Buyers Guide was supposed to disclose in the first place.
What parts are covered — and what quietly drops out at 36,000 miles?
Two lists, and the difference between them is the useful part.
For vehicles under 36,000 miles, subdivision 2, paragraph (c), sets a nine-category floor: engine (all lubricated parts, intake manifolds, engine block, cylinder head, rotary engine housings, ring gear); transmission (automatic transmission case, internal parts, torque converter; or manual transmission case and internal parts); drive axle (axle housings and internal parts, axle shafts, drive shafts and output shafts, universal joints — excluding the secondary drive axle on non-van vehicles mounted on a truck chassis); brakes (master cylinder, vacuum assist booster, wheel cylinders, hydraulic lines and fittings, disc brake calipers); steering (steering gear housing and all internal parts, power steering pump, valve body, piston, and rack); the water pump; the externally mounted mechanical fuel pump; the radiator; and the alternator, generator, and starter.
For vehicles at 36,000 miles or more but under 200,000, subdivision 2, paragraph (d), sets a seven-category floor. The engine, transmission, drive axle, brakes, water pump, and externally mounted mechanical fuel pump carry over unchanged. Three things drop:
- the radiator is gone;
- the alternator, generator, and starter are gone;
- the steering list loses the rack (paragraph (d) ends at “valve body, and piston”).
That is the whole delta, and it is a defensible one to know cold. A dead alternator at 40,000 miles is outside the statutory minimum; a dead alternator at 30,000 miles is inside it. Note also that paragraph (d) runs as a single band from 36,000 to 200,000 miles even though the durations in paragraph (a) split at 75,000 — the parts list does not change at the tier boundary, only the length of time does.
These are minimums, not ceilings. A dealer is free to warrant more, and if it does, subdivision 7, paragraph (a), makes the broader promise enforceable on its own terms: “In accordance with section 325G.19, subdivision 2, every express warranty in connection with the sale of a used motor vehicle must be honored by the dealer according to the terms of the express warranty.”
That cross-reference is not decoration. Section 325G.19, subd. 2, requires the maker of an express warranty “arising out of a consumer sale in this state” to honor it, and “consumer sale” is defined in § 325G.17, subd. 2, as “a sale of new goods, or as regards an express warranty, any goods, purchased primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” The express-warranty clause is what lets a used vehicle qualify as a “consumer sale” at all.
Does the clock stop when I report the problem?
Yes — reporting inside the window preserves the claim even after the window closes.
(e)(1) A dealer’s obligations under the express warranty remain in effect notwithstanding the fact that the warranty period has expired, if the consumer promptly notified the dealer of the malfunction, defect, or failure in the covered part within the specified warranty period and, within a reasonable time after notification, brings the vehicle or arranges with the dealer to have the vehicle brought to the dealer for inspection and repair.
On a 15-day or 500-mile warranty this is not a technicality; it is the whole ballgame. Notify in writing, date it, and keep proof. A phone call on day 13 that nobody memorialized is a factual dispute; an email on day 13 is not.
Two related provisions cut the other way from what people expect:
- The repaired part gets a fresh period. Subdivision 7, paragraph (b): “Following repair or replacement of a covered part, the dealer remains responsible under the express warranty for that covered part for one additional warranty period.” A part repaired on day 14 of a 15-day warranty is covered for another 15 days from the repair.
- But repairing does not create new coverage elsewhere. Subdivision 7, paragraph (c): honoring the warranty by repairing or replacing a covered part “does not create an additional implied warranty on any portion of the used motor vehicle.” And paragraph (d) allows a dealer to “limit the duration of implied warranties to the duration of the express warranty.”
Where the repair happens is governed by paragraph (e)(2)–(4). A dealer without a repair facility must designate where the vehicle goes. If the failure happens somewhere that makes returning the vehicle to the selling dealer impossible or unreasonable, the consumer may have it repaired elsewhere with the dealer’s consent, “which consent may not be unreasonably withheld.” And non-warranty maintenance and non-warranty repairs may be done anywhere, without the dealer’s consent — a point worth raising when a dealer claims an oil change at a quick-lube voided everything.
Finally, subdivision 2, paragraph (g): the statutory warranty does not cover “defects or repair problems which result from collision, abuse, negligence, or lack of adequate maintenance following sale to the consumer.” Note the last three words. Pre-sale neglect is the dealer’s problem.
Who decides between repair and refund — and how is the refund calculated?
The dealer decides. Subdivision 2, paragraph (b), requires the warranty to obligate the dealer, on a covered failure, “to repair or replace the covered part, or at the dealer’s election, to accept return of the used motor vehicle from the consumer and provide a refund.” A buyer who wants the car gone cannot force a refund through this statute. That is what revocation of acceptance under § 336.2-608 is for, and it is a different showing entirely.
If a refund does happen, subdivision 8 controls the arithmetic, and it is more generous than a typical rescission:
(a) A refund … must consist of the full purchase price of the used motor vehicle and all other charges, including but not limited to excise tax, registration tax, license fees, and reimbursement for towing expenses incurred by the consumer as a result of the vehicle being out of service for warranty repair, less a reasonable allowance for the consumer’s use of the vehicle not exceeding ten cents per mile driven or ten percent of the purchase price, whichever is less. Refunds must include the amount stated by the dealer as the trade-in value of any vehicle traded in and applied to the purchase price …
Three details buyers lose money by not knowing. The use allowance is capped by whichever of the two measures is lower, so on a $6,000 car the deduction can never exceed $600 no matter how many miles were driven. The trade-in comes back at the value the dealer stated, not at what the dealer later says the trade was worth. And towing incurred because the car was out of service for warranty repair is reimbursable.
Paragraph (b) sets the excise-tax formula: the tax paid at purchase, less that tax multiplied by a fraction whose denominator is the purchase price and whose numerator is the use allowance deducted from the refund. Paragraph (c) requires an itemized statement of everything refunded, and provides that if the excise tax is not separately stated — or the dealer does not apply for a tax refund within one year of the vehicle’s return — the Department of Public Safety may refund the excise tax directly to the consumer and lienholder.
What if the dealer advertised the car as “certified”?
Then there is a separate, freestanding claim in subdivision 8a, and it does not depend on anything going wrong mechanically.
It is unlawful for a dealer to advertise or sell a used vehicle as “certified,” or to use “any similar descriptive term … that implies the vehicle has been certified to meet the terms of a used motor vehicle certification program,” if any of eight things is true. The dealer knows or should know that the odometer does not show actual mileage, was rolled back or altered, or was replaced with one showing fewer miles. The dealer knows or should know the vehicle was reacquired by the manufacturer or a dealer under state or federal warranty laws. The dealer knows or should know the title bears a “damaged,” “flood,” “junk,” “lemon law buyback,” “manufacturer repurchase,” “nonrepairable,” “rebuilt,” “reconditioned,” “salvage,” or similar designation. The dealer knows or should know the vehicle sustained impact, fire, or flood damage substantially impairing use or safety. The dealer knows or should know the vehicle has frame damage. The dealer failed, before sale, to give the buyer a completed inspection report showing all components inspected. The dealer disclaimed warranties of merchantability. Or the vehicle was sold “AS IS.”
The last two are strict — no knowledge element at all. A dealer cannot call a car “certified” and disclaim merchantability, and cannot call a car “certified” and sell it “AS IS.” Paragraph (b) adds that the subdivision “does not abrogate or limit any disclosure obligation imposed by any other law,” so the certification claim stacks on top of the prior-damage disclosure duties in § 325F.6641.
How long do I have to sue?
Shorter than you think, and measured from an unusual point.
Subd. 10. Limitation on actions. A private civil action brought by a consumer under this section with respect to a warranty claim must be commenced within one year of the expiration of the express warranty.
Not one year from sale. Not one year from breach. One year from when the warranty expired. On the 15-day tier, that is roughly a year and two weeks from delivery. On the 60-day tier, roughly fourteen months.
That is a fraction of the UCC period. Minn. Stat. § 336.2-725(1) gives four years for breach of a contract for sale, and subsection (2) starts that clock at tender of delivery for a warranty breach unless the warranty explicitly extends to future performance. Subdivision 11 preserves the difference: “Nothing in this section limits the rights or remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law.” So a claim that is dead under § 325F.662 may be alive under Article 2 — but only if it was pleaded as an Article 2 claim, which is a reason not to file a used-car case as a bare § 325F.662 count.
What is the case worth?
Subdivision 9 is the reason these cases get brought at all:
Any dealer who is found to have violated this section is subject to the penalties and remedies, including a private right of action, as provided in section 8.31. In addition, a violation of subdivision 7 is also a violation of section 325F.69.
Section 8.31, subd. 3a, is the private attorney general statute: “any person injured by a violation … may bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court.”
There is a well-known limit on that remedy. In Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000), the supreme court held that “the Private AG Statute applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public,” id. at 314, reasoning that “the sweep of the[] statute can be no broader than the source of its authority — that of the attorney general — whose duties are to protect public rights in the interest of the state,” id. at 313–14. The plaintiff there had been defrauded in “a single one-on-one transaction,” and the court held that prosecuting his fraud claim did “not advance state interests.” Id. at 314. The site covers that requirement and how courts have applied it in Minnesota’s Private Attorney General Statute; this article does not restate it.
What is worth flagging here is the second sentence of subdivision 9. A violation of subdivision 7 — the failure-to-honor provision — “is also a violation of section 325F.69,” the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. That matters because § 8.31, subd. 1, expressly lists “the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (sections 325F.68 to 325F.70)” among the laws the attorney general is charged with investigating, while § 325F.662 itself is not on that list. A refusal-to-honor claim therefore reaches § 8.31 through a route that does not depend on § 325F.662’s own incorporation clause. Note as well that the 2023 session added “unfair or unconscionable practice” to § 325F.69, subd. 1, alongside fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement, and deceptive practice.
For the elements and reach of the Consumer Fraud Act itself, see Minnesota’s Consumer Fraud Act and Deceptive Trade Practices.
What if my car is one the statute excludes?
Then you are in the general law of warranty, and it is not nothing — as the leading Minnesota used-car case demonstrates, on facts where § 325F.662 could not have applied.
In Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC, 909 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2018), a dealer bought a pickup from a salvage yard for $6,770 knowing it needed engine work, made it look and drive well enough for a short test drive, and sold it for $12,950.68. The check-engine light was on during the test drive; the salesman said it was a faulty oxygen sensor, easily fixed. The purchase agreement disclaimed all warranties and said “AS IS, NO WARRANTY.” The buyer signed a Buyers Guide marked “AS IS-NO WARRANTY” and a handwritten addendum noting the light and the salvage title. Within days the truck would not exceed 40 miles per hour; a dealer inspection concluded it should not be driven and recommended a roughly $20,000 engine replacement. Id. at 552–53.
The supreme court held “that Ride Auto’s fraudulent statements about the fitness of the truck for the purpose for which a truck is purchased are a circumstance that make the ‘as is’ disclaimers of implied warranties in the purchase documents ineffective under Minn. Stat. § 336.2-316(3)(a).” Id. at 557. It also held the buyer could recover on both fraud and breach of warranty without double recovery. Id. at 558.
The salvage brand on that truck’s title would have excluded it from § 325F.662 under subdivision 3, clause (9). The statutory warranty was never available. The claim worked anyway — through the UCC’s implied warranty of merchantability, the fraud exception to “as is,” and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s fee provision.
That is the general lesson for excluded vehicles. Three other routes are usually live:
- The UCC implied warranties, and the separate Minnesota consumer-sale rule in § 325G.18 that makes a bare “as is” ineffective without four specific disclosures. See Minnesota’s UCC Article 2 Warranties.
- Revocation of acceptance under § 336.2-608, which requires substantial impairment rather than a mere defect. See Revoking Acceptance.
- Fraud and the Consumer Fraud Act, which is where the fee exposure lives when the misrepresentation is provable.
And if the dispute is over a repair rather than the sale, the applicable statute is different again — see Minnesota’s Truth in Repairs Act. If it is a total-loss valuation fight with an insurer after a crash, that is a different framework entirely.
What to do
If you just bought the car and something failed:
- Write down the odometer at sale. Everything in this statute keys off it. Get the number from the title application or the odometer disclosure, not from memory.
- Get the Buyers Guide. Not the purchase agreement — the window form. Under 16 C.F.R. § 455.3(a) the dealer must give it to you, and under § 455.3(b) it overrides contrary terms in the contract.
- Notify the dealer in writing immediately, describing the failed part. Subdivision 2, paragraph (e)(1), preserves the dealer’s obligation past expiration only if you notified within the period.
- Do not accept “you signed it as is.” Check whether the vehicle is covered; if it is, subdivision 5 supplies the warranty regardless, and subdivision 4’s waiver requires a circled, signed, part-specific disclosure on the front of the Buyers Guide.
- Calendar the deadline from warranty expiration, not from purchase. Subdivision 10 runs one year from expiration of the express warranty.
If you are a dealer: the two provisions that generate the most exposure are subdivision 5, which supplies the warranty you did not write, and subdivision 8a, which makes “certified” unlawful on an “AS IS” sale with no knowledge element at all.
What Madgett Law, LLC does here
We represent Minnesota buyers in used-vehicle disputes with dealers — reading the Buyers Guide against the purchase agreement, determining whether a vehicle falls inside § 325F.662’s tiers or one of its nine exclusions, sending the written notice that preserves the claim past the warranty period, and pleading the UCC, Consumer Fraud Act, and Magnuson-Moss counts alongside the statutory one so that a short limitations period does not end the case. We also handle the lender side when a defective vehicle is financed, and the credit-reporting fallout when a buyer stops paying on a car that does not run.
If a dealer has refused to honor a warranty on a car you bought in Minnesota, call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 325F.662, subd. 1(b) (definition of “dealer,” including “whether licensed or unlicensed” and the four carve-outs), subd. 1(c) (definition of “motor vehicle”), subd. 1(e) (express warranty defined by reference to § 325G.17, subd. 5), subd. 1(f) (Buyer’s Guide defined by reference to 16 C.F.R. § 455.2), subd. 2(a)(1)–(3) (three minimum warranty terms by odometer reading; new-motor-vehicle-dealer exemption in clause (3)), subd. 2(b) (dealer’s election between repair/replace and refund), subd. 2(c) (nine covered-part categories under 36,000 miles), subd. 2(d) (seven covered-part categories from 36,000 to under 200,000 miles), subd. 2(e)(1) (obligation survives expiration on prompt notice), subd. 2(e)(2)–(4) (repair location; consent not unreasonably withheld; non-warranty repairs anywhere), subd. 2(g) (post-sale collision, abuse, negligence, lack of maintenance excluded), subd. 2(h) (terms disclosed on front of Buyers Guide), subd. 3(1), (5), (7), (9) (price, age, 200,000-mile, and salvage-brand exclusions and the 2023 carve-backs), subd. 3(2)–(4), (6), (8) (diesel, gross weight, custom/racing, low-volume manufacturer, and non-compliant emission/safety exclusions), subd. 4 (part-specific waiver: disclosure of the defect, circling, and signature on the Buyers Guide), subd. 5 (warranty supplied as a matter of law), subd. 6 (compliance “in all respects” with 16 C.F.R. part 455), subd. 7(a)–(d) (honoring; one additional warranty period after repair; no new implied warranty; duration limit), subd. 8(a)–(c) (refund components; use allowance capped at ten cents per mile or ten percent of purchase price, whichever is less; excise-tax formula; itemized statement), subd. 8a(a)(1)–(8), (b) (“certified” advertising prohibitions), subd. 9 (remedies via § 8.31; subd. 7 violation also violates § 325F.69), subd. 10 (one year from expiration of the express warranty), subd. 11 (remedies nonexclusive). Laws 2023, ch. 57, art. 4, §§ 13–14 (adding the 75,000-to-200,000-mile tier and the carve-backs to the price and age exclusions; neither section carried an effective-date clause). Minn. Stat. § 645.02, ¶ 2 (effective date of an act having appropriation items). Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1 (Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, §§ 325F.68 to 325F.70, among the laws the attorney general investigates), subd. 3a (private action; damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees). Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1 (unlawful practices, as amended in 2023 to add “unfair or unconscionable practice”). Minn. Stat. § 325G.17, subd. 2 (“consumer sale” includes, as regards an express warranty, any goods), subd. 5 (express warranty defined). Minn. Stat. § 325G.19, subd. 2 (retail seller must honor its own express warranty). Minn. Stat. § 168.27, subd. 2 (new motor vehicle dealer license; licensee may sell “any used motor vehicles”), subd. 3 (used motor vehicle dealer). Minn. Stat. § 325F.6641, subd. 2 (dealer disclosure of prior damage and title brands, referenced in the discussion of subd. 8a(b)). Minn. Stat. § 168.002, subd. 13 (gross weight), subd. 24 (passenger automobile; exclusions). Minn. Stat. § 336.2-725(1)–(2) (four-year limitation; accrual at tender of delivery). 16 C.F.R. § 455.1(c)–(d) (compliance with §§ 455.2–455.5; definitions of vehicle, used vehicle, dealer), § 455.2(a) (general duty to display the Buyers Guide), § 455.2(b)(1)(ii) (state law limiting or prohibiting “as is” sales overrides the Rule; IMPLIED WARRANTIES ONLY substitution), § 455.3(a)–(b) (form given to buyer; incorporated into contract and overrides contrary contract provisions), § 455.4 (no contrary statements). Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302, 313–14 (Minn. 2000) (public-benefit requirement for the private attorney general statute). Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC, 909 N.W.2d 550, 552–53, 557–58 (Minn. 2018) (facts of the salvage-title truck sale; fraudulent statements about fitness make “as is” disclaimers ineffective under § 336.2-316(3)(a); recovery on both fraud and warranty was not a double recovery).
This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and no outcome is promised or implied. The law changes, and how it applies depends on the specific facts of a case.