This decision reverses a judgment for fraudulent concealment of an alleged defect in a car because there was no substantial evidence that before the plaintiff bought the car (thus allegedly relying on the concealment) the defendant knew of the alleged defect and that it was unable or unwilling to fix it.  However, the decision also affirms the judgment for plaintiff on willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act because there was substantial evidence that after plaintiff bought the car, but during the period while its new car warranty was still in effect, defendant learned of the defect and then made an intentionally flawed repair of the defect which created a new problem while it cured another.  Defendant’s liability under the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repurchase the car occurred when the plaintiff requested a repair during the warranty period and defendant knowingly made an inadequate repair, not later when outside the warranty period the plaintiff demanded repurchase.  A 998 offer during the litigation and four years after the flawed repair also did not absolve defendant of liability for the willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act.