59.  At all times, Toyota is and has been engaged in the business of designing,  manufacturing, distributing, marketing, and selling Toyota vehicles throughout the United States.   60.  At all times, Toyota is and has been a merchant and seller of the Subject Vehicles,  and Defendants sold such vehicles to the consumer Plaintiff and the members of the class.   61.  In the course of selling its vehicles, Toyota expressly warranted in writing that the  Subject Vehicles were free from defects.   62.  Toyota expressly warranted to the Plaintiff and the members of the class that the  Subject Vehicles were merchantable and fit for their ordinary, particular, and intended use and  purpose.   63.  Toyota also provided the Program to Plaintiff and the members of the class, thereby  expressly warranting that the defective dashboards on the Subject Vehicles would be repaired and  expressly warranting that those customers that had previously paid for repairs related to the defect  would be fully reimbursed.   64.  Toyota breached its express warranties. The Subject Vehicles sold by Toyota to  Plaintiff and the members of the class were not in merchantable condition, were not fit for the  ordinary purpose for which cars are used and/or were not of the same quality as those generally  acceptable in the trade. In fact, the Subject Vehicles, including the vehicle purchased by Plaintiff,  were defective from the point of manufacture and sale, thus rendering the product unmerchantable  at the time of purchase.   65.  Toyota has breached its express warranties, including its Program, by failing to  adequately provide coverage and to repair or correct the dashboard and interior panel defects,  leaving millions of customers without a remedy.   67.  The Program provided to Plaintiff and all members of the class provides that the  "Warranty Enhancement coverage is fully transferrable to subsequent vehicle owners for the  condition and terms specified in the notification letter." See, e.g., Ex. A, Dkt. No. 22-3, at 10; Ex.  B, Dkt. No.1 0-4, at 11.   68.  Notwithstanding this, privity is not required in this case because Plaintiff and class  members are intended third-party beneficiaries of contracts between Toyota and their dealers;  specifically, they are the intended beneficiaries of Toyota's warranties. The dealers were not  intended to be the ultimate consumers of the Subject Vehicles and have no rights under the  warranty agreements provided with the Subject Vehicles; the warranty agreements were designed  for and intended to benefit the ultimate consumers only.   69.  Plaintiff took reasonable steps to notify Toyota within a reasonable time that her  defective vehicle was not as represented by contacting her authorized Toyota dealer, as instructed  by Toyota in the Initial Notice provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was not required to provide notice  of the defect to the remote manufacturer; in any event, Toyota received actual notice of the defect  because Plaintiff contacted a local authorized Toyota dealer for repairs, as well as its corporate  headquarters, and Toyota has failed to repair her vehicle.   71.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if fully  set forth herein verbatim.   72.  Toyota is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles.   73.  Plaintiff purchased her defective vehicle from Toyota's authorized agent. At the  time of purchase, Toyota and its authorized agents were in the business of leasing and selling  vehicles and/or by course of business held themselves out as having special knowledge or skill  regarding these vehicles.   74.  A warranty that the Subject Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied  by law in the instant transaction.   75.  The Subject Vehicles, when sold and at all times thereafter, were not in  merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which cars are used and/or were  not of the same quality as those generally acceptable in the trade. In fact, the Subject Vehicles,  including the vehicle purchased by Plaintiff, were defective from the point of manufacture and  sale, thus rendering the product unmerchantable at the time of purchase. Specifically, the Subject  Vehicles were designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold with a defective dashboard and  interior panels that Toyota knew were defective and likely to melt or prematurely degrade.   76.  Plaintiff and class members have had sufficient direct dealings with either  Defendants or their agents (dealerships) to establish vertical privity of contract between themselves  and Defendants.   78.  Notwithstanding this, privity is not required in this case because Plaintiff and class  members are intended third-party beneficiaries of contracts between Toyota and their dealers;  specifically, they are the intended beneficiaries of Toyota's warranties. The dealers were not  intended to be the ultimate consumers of the Subject Vehicles and have no rights under the  warranty agreements provided with the Subject Vehicles; the warranty agreements were designed  for and intended to benefit the ultimate consumers only.   79.  Plaintiff took reasonable steps to notify Toyota within a reasonable time that her  defective vehicle was not as represented by contacting her authorized Toyota dealer, as instructed  by Toyota in the Initial Notice provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was not required to provide notice  of the defect to the remote manufacturer; in any event, Toyota received actual notice of the defect  because Plaintiff contacted a local authorized Toyota dealer for repairs, as well as its corporate  headquarters, and Toyota has failed to repair her vehicle.   80.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breaches, the Plaintiff and the  members of the class have suffered harm and monetary loss. Defendants' practice of selling the  Subject Vehicles, which did not have the expected quality, is a substantial factor in causing harm  to Plaintiff and the class members.  81.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as iffully  set forth herein verbatim.   83.  Plaintiff is a "consumer" within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,  Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability   Breach of Express Warranty   Violation ofthe Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act  15 U.S.c. § 2301, et seq.  