Ramos leased a new Mercedes. It made grinding sounds when he backed up and turned the steering wheel. He took the car in to be fixed many times. It was never repaired to the point of stopping the noises. At lease end, Ramos returned the car, but also sued to recover damages unde the Song-Beverly Act. The jury found that Mercedes had violated Civ. Code § 1793.2(b) by failing to repair the car to meet express warranties within 30 days, and awarded Ramos $1800 for that violation. However, the jury also found that the defect did not substantially impair the vehicle’s use, value or safety and that it was fit for the ordinary purposes for which cars are used. This decision holds that based on the latter finding, Ramos was not entitled to recover amounts he had paid on the lease since the replace or give restitution remedy applies only to a violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(d) which concerns failure to repair to conform to express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts but applies only if the nonconformity “substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle to the buyer or lessee.” (Civ. Code § 1793.22(e)(1).) Since the jury found no such nonconformity, Ramos couldn’t recover restitution of his lease payments under Civ. Code § 1793.2(d) and also could not rescind the lease and revoke his acceptance of the car, since such a revocation would not be “justified.”