LibUUDDIUI Forum A Question of Ethics-Lemon Laws. Randal Schweiger bought a 2008 Kia Spectra EX from Kia Motors America, Inc., for his stepdaughter, April Kirichkow. The cost was $17,231, plus sales tax and other charges, and Schweiger financed the entire amount. April soon began having trouble starting the car. The Kia dealership replaced various parts of the motor several times, but was unable to fix the problem. Schweiger sought a refund under the state's lemon law. When Schweiger and Kia could not agree on the amount, Schweiger filed a suit in a Wisconsin state court against Kia. The court ruled in Schweiger's favor, and Kia appealed. [Schweiger v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 347 Wis.2d 550,830 N.W.2d 723 (2013)] (See Warranties.) 1. Kia offered a refund of $3,306.24. Should this offer bar Schweiger's claim for a refund? Why or why not? 2. Schweiger claimed that Kia's offer did not include the $1,301 cost of a service contract that he purchased with the car. Kia argued that the amount still owed on the purchase, $13,060.16--which Schweiger agreed was the correct amount "would by definition refund the cost of the service contract." The court found "no logical basis" for this argument. Is it ethical for a party to argue a position for which there is no logical basis