In action under Wisc. Lemon Law in which plaintiff demanded that defendant-manufacturer of motorized tricycle either replace tricycle or refund purchase price after said tricycle had been out of service for repairs for 71 days during first year, Dist. Ct. did not err in modifying Wisc. Pattern Jury Instructions for Lemon Law claims by informing jury that plaintiff could recover if he gave authorized repair facility opportunity to repair tricycle, as opposed to giving defendant itself same opportunity, as set forth in standard jury instruction. Said instruction modification reflected intent of Lemon Law, and record showed that plaintiff had followed defendant’s instruction to take tricyle to defendant’s authorized repair shop. Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that plaintiff could only recover if he had tendered tricyle to defendant to make said repairs.