SC Lemon Law Statute (S.C. Code § 56-28-10)

S.C. Code § 56-28-10 et seq. — the Enforcement of Motor Vehicle Express Warranties statute — is the core South Carolina Lemon Law. The statute provides refund or replacement for new motor vehicles that don’t conform to express manufacturer warranties despite a reasonable number of repair attempts. SC is distinctive among peer states in two structural ways: the manufacturer (not the consumer) chooses between refund and replacement under § 56-28-40, and attorney fees are discretionary under § 56-28-50 rather than mandatory.

Core eligibility

Under § 56-28-10, the statute covers:

• New motor vehicles purchased in South Carolina.
• Purpose: personal, family, or household use.
• GVWR: under 10,000 lbs.
• Vehicle types: passenger vehicles, small trucks, vans, motorcycles (including three-wheel under § 56-28-10(4)).
• Excluded: motor homes (chassis may still be covered), commercial-only vehicles, vehicles 10,000+ lbs GVWR, used vehicles (no separate SC Used Car Lemon Law).

“Consumer” under § 56-28-10(1) includes:

• Purchasers.
• Lessees (“lessor” in statutory text — interpreted as lessees).
• Subsequent transferees entitled by warranty to enforce obligations.

The 12-month / 12,000-mile express warranty window

§ 56-28-30 establishes the eligibility window. The nonconformity must be:

• Reported to the manufacturer or its agent during the term of the express warranties, AND
• Within the first 12 months of purchase OR first 12,000 miles, whichever first.

This 12-month / 12K window is among the shortest combined Rights Periods in the country. Compare:

• 12-month combined: South Carolina, Alabama (12K reporting + 24-month repair obligation), Tennessee, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Louisiana
• 18-month: Virginia, Indiana (18-month / 18K)
• 24-month / 24K: Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, most other 2-year states

The short window demands fast action — document defects immediately and reach threshold within the express warranty term.

Repair-attempt thresholds

Under § 56-28-30, the presumption of a reasonable number of attempts applies when:

• Three or more repair attempts for the same nonconformity by the manufacturer, its agents, or its authorized dealers within the express warranty term; OR
• 30 or more cumulative calendar days out of service during the express warranty.

The straight 3-attempt threshold is more consumer-favorable than 4-attempt jurisdictions — joining Tennessee § 55-24-202(b), Georgia § 10-1-783(b), Massachusetts, Virginia § 59.1-207.13(B)(2), and Oregon § 646A.402(1)(b)(A) at the 3-attempt tier.

Unlike Alabama § 8-20A-2(b), SC does NOT require a separate “final manufacturer attempt” after the three dealer attempts. Three attempts at the dealer level suffice.

MANUFACTURER’S option for refund vs replacement — § 56-28-40

§ 56-28-40 provides:

“the manufacturer shall replace the motor vehicle with a comparable motor vehicle, or at its option, accept return of the motor vehicle from the consumer and refund…”

The manufacturer chooses between replacement and refund — NOT the consumer. This is materially different from peer states:

• Alabama § 8-20A-3(2): “the consumer at the consumer’s election.”
• Tennessee § 55-24-204(a): consumer’s choice between refund and replacement.
• California § 1793.2: consumer’s choice.
• Florida § 681.104: consumer’s choice.
• New York § 198-a: consumer’s choice.
• Most other states: consumer’s choice.

SC is one of the few states placing the choice with the manufacturer. Practical implications:

• Manufacturer typically offers replacement when inventory is available and the model is in production.
• Manufacturer typically offers refund when model is discontinued or inventory is constrained.
• Consumer cannot insist on a specific remedy as a matter of statutory right.

DISCRETIONARY § 56-28-50 attorney fees

§ 56-28-50 provides:

“the prevailing party may be allowed by the court to recover… reasonable attorney’s fees… unless the court in its discretion determines that such an award would be inappropriate.”

This is meaningfully weaker than peer states:

• Alabama § 8-20A-3(4) — mandatory.
• Tennessee § 55-24-204 — mandatory.
• North Carolina § 20-351.8 — mandatory.
• Virginia § 59.1-207.14 — mandatory + expert-witness fees.
• New Jersey § 56:12-32 — mandatory + expert-witness fees.

For SC consumers, the mandatory § 39-5-140(a) SCUTPA fees (when SCUTPA elements satisfied) and Magnuson-Moss § 2310(d)(2) fees are typically the load-bearing fee-recovery basis. Pleading SCUTPA carefully — with adequate public-interest factual basis — is critical for contingency-fee economics.

Manufacturer IDS required first OR § 56-28-90 state arbitration

Under § 56-28-60, if the manufacturer has a certified IDS procedure (16 C.F.R. Part 703 compliant), the consumer must first complete that procedure. Most major manufacturers’ IDS in SC is BBB Auto Line.

If the manufacturer has no certified IDS, § 56-28-90 provides a state-administered arbitration alternative. This is a partial state-arbitration framework — not as robust as Connecticut DCP, Florida NMVA Board, Washington AG, New Jersey DCA Lemon Law Unit, or Massachusetts OCABR, but it does provide a state-administered option absent from most southeastern peer states.

3-year action SOL

§ 56-28-70 provides:

“Any action brought under this chapter must be commenced within three years following the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to the consumer.”

3 years from original delivery — consistent with Alabama § 8-20A-6 and meaningfully longer than peer-state action windows. SC’s 3-year window provides extended litigation runway.

Bottom line

SC’s § 56-28-10 framework combines a tight 12-month / 12K express warranty rights window with a 3-attempt or 30-day OOS threshold and a generous 3-year action SOL. But two structural distinctives — manufacturer’s-option remedy and discretionary § 56-28-50 fees — make the standalone Lemon Law theory weaker than in peer states. Successful SC lemon-law strategy leverages SCUTPA mandatory treble + fees and Magnuson-Moss federal fees to compensate.

Related

Article

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Federal Overlay for SC Cases)

15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. — Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides federal-court access (D.S.C.), § 2310(d)(2) attorney fees, and a 4-year UCC SOL backstop under S.C. Code § 36-2-725 for South Carolina lemon-law claims.

Read → Article

South Carolina Repair-Attempt Presumption (3 attempts / 30 days OOS)

S.C. Code § 56-28-30 — straight 3-attempt threshold within the express warranty term, OR 30 cumulative calendar days OOS. NO separate manufacturer-level final attempt (unlike Alabama).

Read → Article

South Carolina Lemon Law Statute of Limitations

The deadlines on SC lemon-law claims — 3-year Lemon Law SOL (§ 56-28-70), 3-year SCUTPA SOL from discovery (§ 39-5-150), 4-year UCC/Magnuson-Moss SOL (§ 36-2-725).

Read → Article

South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA)

S.C. Code § 39-5-10 et seq. — SCUTPA mandatory treble damages for willful/knowing violations under § 39-5-140(a), mandatory § 39-5-140(a) attorney fees, 3-year SOL, but PUBLIC-INTEREST REQUIREMENT and NO CLASS ACTIONS.

Read →