In Martinez v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 187, a California purchaser from a dealership, whose new car was repossessed after she became unable to afford additional repairs during the warranty period, was treated as falling within the Act's definition of a "buyer," in large part because the only seller was a dealer that continued to owe her warranty duties under the Act. The court reasoned, "Nowhere does the Act provide that the consumer must own or possess the vehicle at all times in order to avail himself or herself of these remedies. All the Act requires of the buyer is that the buyer 'deliver the nonconforming goods to the manufacturer's service and repair facility' for the purpose of allowing the manufacturer a reasonable number of attempts to cure the problem. Once this delivery occurs and the manufacturer fails to cure the problem, the 'manufacturer shall' replace the vehicle or reimburse (make restitution to) the buyer. ( 1794, subd. (b), 1793.2, subd. (d)(2).) The Act says nothing about the buyer having to retain the vehicle after the manufacturer fails to comply with its obligations under its warranty and the Act. If the Legislature intended to impose such a requirement, it could have easily included language to that effect. It did not." (Martinez, supra, at p. 194.) As a matter of policy, "'Interpretations that would significantly vitiate a manufacturer's incentive to comply with the Act should be avoided.'" (Id. at p. 195.)