Under the Song-Beverly Act, Civ. Code 1793.2(d), a manufacturer must “promptly” offer to repurchase a car (or other consumer good) that it has been unable to repair to merchantable condition or to the expressly warranted condition after a reasonable number of repair attempts. There is no set time deadline for a “prompt” offer, but 40-50 days following a demand has been found prompt. Here, the repurchase offer was made 23 days after the consumer’s demand and so was prompt as a matter of law, particularly as some of the delay was due to plaintiff’s failure to furnish documents the manufacturer needed to be able to calculate the required refund. In calculating the refund offer, the manufacturer may offset against the amounts the consumer has paid for the car, a sum for the consumer’s use of the car prior to repurchase. That use offset is calculated based on the ““the actual price of the new motor vehicle paid or payable by the buyer.” This decision holds that the “actual price” is the agreed value of the car, not just the total of lease payments due during a car lease. The manufacturer did not violate Civ. Code 1793.26 by conditioning the repurchase offer a clause requiring confidentiality with respect solely to the financial details of the repurchase offer. The statute prohibits only clauses forbidding disclosure of the car’s mechanical problems. The manufacturer’s prompt, code-compliant repurchase offer also negated the damage element of plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim under Civ. Code 1793.1.