There appears to be a host of consumer complaints about this car. I personally have always thought Toyota was the best manufacturer hands down. Things are changing. Some complaints pertain to an acceleration problem, and there are some generalized complaints. Tacoma complaints from complaint.com. If you have any problems with the Toyota Tacoma, acceleration or otherwise we provide free consultations. Carton and Rudnick, 262 HWY 35, Red Bank NJ 07701. (732) 842-2070.
I continue to search the internet for complaints against this dealership. What is going on here?
Read this.. More complaints.. More.
In 2006 the New Jersey Attorney General filed suit against Cherry Hill TriPlex making numerous allegations. You can view the entire press release.. “This company allegedly advertised great deals that, in reality, were not available at its dealerships,” Attorney General Zulima V. Farber said. “This was a typical bait and switch operation. We will not tolerate such deceptive practices.”
How do dealerships continue to operate with complete disregard for the customers on whom they rely to make a profit? At a minimum assuming the dealership is completely innocent and did nothing wrong, they had too many dissatisfied customers.
If you want a copy of the pleadings I would recommend that you send an OPRA request to New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety. OPRA ONLINE FORM.
I do not know the current status of the litigation. The dealership has denied all allegations.
Continue reading " Cherry Hill Triplex Gets Sued by the NJ Attorney Generals Office (2006) " »
I have a pending class action suit in Superior Court of New Jersey alleging that Saturn of Toms River is not providing the employee discount to those who should receive the General Motors employee discount. If you have acquired a car from Saturn Toms River and think that you should have received the employee discount please call my office.
Carton and Rudnick, 262 HWY 35, Red Bank, NJ 07701 (732) 842-2070
Continue reading " Saturn of Toms River NJ " »
Guess what? In the car business dealer take as many liberties with their employees as they do with the customers. There are two basic profit centers: The front end and the back end. The salesmen get paid on the front end only. This is the "cost" of the car as compared to the selling price. Some people think the cost is the invoice of the car or better known as tissue. The higher level employees get paid on the overall profit of the dealership which includes all the items considered after market, warranties etc.
The problem occurs when calculating the cost for calculation of the gross commisionable proceeds for the employees. The dealers add costs to the acquisition price of the car. Some dealers call them "ups". The dealers increase the cost by the amount of the ups to reduce the commissions.
Usually the pay plans are based on the costs of the products. The dealers take liberties with increasing the cost of the vehicles without disclosing this to the staff, because they exclusively control access to this information.
If you are a car salesman and you think that the dealership is improperly calculating your pay or improperly increasing the cost of the vehicles feel free to call Carton and Rudnick for a free consultation.
Have you had a dream like this?
I think this is an advertisement for a car dealer, but I am not sure. The guy just keeps blabbing while he gets run over. Just about right.
Carton and Rudnick is a law firm located in Middletown/Red Bank that has significant experience in litigating against car dealerships.
If you want to pursue a claim in the Administrative Court you MUST send a 10 day letter. This is a jurisdictional requirement.
If you want to sue in Superior Court you do NOT need to send a ten day letter.
To satisfy the ascertainable loss requirement the plaintiff need prove only that he has purchased item partially as a result of an unfair or deceptive practice or act and that the item is different from that for which he bargained. If one sets out to purchase two things, and for the price paid receives only one, the conclusion seems inescapable that there has been an ascertainable loss. Whenever a consumer has received something other than what he has bargained for, he has suffered a loss of money or property. That loss is ascertainable if it is measurable even though the precise amount of the loss is not known. When the product fails to measure up to reasonable expectations based on the representations made, the consumer has been injured: he has suffered a loss. He has lost benefits of the product, which he was led to believe he had purchased. Miller v. American Family Publishing, 284 N.J.Super 67, 88 (App.Div. 1995). The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that a consumer debt, which is a result of consumer fraud, can be an ascertainable loss. Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 138 N.J. 2, 21-23 (1994)
In an ordinary breach-of-contract case, the function of damages is simply to make the injured party whole, and courts do not assess penalties against the breaching party. However, the goals of the Act are different. Although one purpose of the legislation is clearly remedial in that it seeks to compensate a victim's loss, the Act also punishes the wrongdoer by awarding a victim treble damages, attorneys' fees, filing fees, and costs. In that sense, the Act serves as a deterrent. Therefore, in determining whether plaintiff has established a loss under the Act, we are guided by but not bound to strict contract principles*** We conclude that an improper debt or lien against a consumer-fraud plaintiff may constitute a loss under the Act, because the consumer is not obligated to pay an indebtedness arising out of conduct that violates the Act.
Therefore the plaintiff need only prove that the contract or debt resulted from fraud or consumer fraud and it would then be the defendant’s burden to prove setoff. In Lotito v. Mercedes Benz, 328 N.J.Super. 491 (App.Div 2000) the Court held that the burden of proof shifted to the defendant after the plaintiff proved he made all the payments on the lease. Lotito was a breach of warranty case, not a consumer fraud case, but the equities are the same. The Consumer Fraud Act is to be generally construed since it is remedial legislation.
The Lotito Court held:
Generally, burdens of proof are not allocated in statutory law but are left to the courts as matters of procedure. In re Will of Smith, 108 N.J. 257, 264, 528 A.2d 918 (1987). Judicial allocation of the burden of persuasion "can vary depending upon the type of proceedings, the comparative interests of the parties, the relative litigational strengths or weaknesses of the parties, the access of the parties to proof, and the objectives to be served by the evidence in the context of the particular proceeding." Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66, 89, 474 A.2d 1 (1984). Obviously, the lessee has no interest in establishing the value of the use of the vehicle and the lessor has every interest in proving that the value of the use equaled or exceeded the amounts paid by the lessee. In addition, the lessor, because of the nature of its business, is in a far better position to provide evidence of the value of use. Although generally the party seeking damages has the burden of proof, Caldwell v. Haynes, 136 N.J. 422, 436, 643 A.2d 564 (1994), Lotito should be viewed as having satisfied that burden by proving what he had paid. The burden of proving the claimed offset for the value of use fairly belongs on the party in breach in these circumstances. Cf. Block v. Diana, 252 N.J.Super. 650, 657-58, 600 A.2d 520 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 127 N.J. 564, 606 A.2d 375 (1992). Id at 512.
Plaintiff must demonstrate the case by a preponderance of the evidence. See Liberty Mutual v. Budge, 186 N.J. 163 (2006)
The appellate Division recently revisited the issue of ascertainable loss pertaining to defective cars in Thiedeman v. Mercedez Benz, 183 N.J. 234, 248 (2005)
To repeat, plaintiffs have a car with a defect in a significant component, which defect is present in every replacement of that component, and will likely manifest itself at some future time. We believe that common knowledge, indeed common sense, compels a conclusion that the value of the vehicle is impaired to a measurable, if presently unknowable degree. Can it possibly be doubted that if the Flahertys sought to sell their vehicle on the used car market, and advised prospective buyers of the fuel-sending unit problem, that they would receive less than if the vehicle had no such defect? We think not. This proposition is "so universally known that [it] cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute," N.J .R.E. 201(b)(1), and is, therefore, subject to judicial notice by us. N.J.R.E. 202(b). The loss we posit is not simply a loss of consumer expectation or an unquantifiable benefit-of-the-bargain loss. There is more here than just a sense of unease in driving a car that has a potential problem that could impact on safety. There is a loss in value, not simply a loss of expectation
The New Jersey Supreme Court has been clear in this issue. The defendant cannot reap the benefit of their own fraudulent actions. They cannot retain the benefits of a debt or a transaction which was improperly and illegally created. For the Supreme Court to hold to the contrary, they would only encourage fraudulent conduct wherein defendants could claim that claimants somehow received the benefit of the defendants’ fraudulent acts. Had the defendant NOT OMITTED the negative equity in the retail installment sales contract, clearly the transaction could not have been completed/approved. The New Jersey Supreme Court in Cox specifically held that a debt which is illegally or improperly created constituted an ascertainable loss under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Indicative of the defendant’s intent is its failure to have a copy of the retail agreement in their files. Apparently, the defendant attempted to hide their illegal and improper actions.
This interpretation of the application of the Consumer Fraud Act by the New Jersey Supreme Court is consistent with the statutory framework pertaining to remedies for fraud.
N.J.S.A. 2A:32-1. Remedies of person defrauded
Continue reading " The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Requires an Ascertainable Loss " »
This investigative reports catches Jiffey Lube red handed. They are doing no work and getting paid.
Do these companies ever learn? The next time you have an oil change you should mark the oil filter or any part that they are supposed to change
Continue reading " Jiffey Lube Scam. Caught on Video. " »
The auto industry is ripe with questionable conduct. This interview with an industry insider reveals that there are wide spread abuses with the granting of credit for consumers.
Continue reading " Sub Prime Car Loans. " »
You can search for a recall for a your car. More Recalls
Continue reading " Search for a Recall on Your Car " »
This is a great site run by the government and keeps track of all the most recent recalls: Recalls-Recalls-Recalls
Recalls
Consumer Products
Foods, Medicines, Cosmetics
Motor Vehicles, Car Seats
Environmental Products
Meat and Poultry Products
Boats and Boating Safety
Omissions of material fact are actionable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. See Cox v. Sears, 138 N.J. 2, 18 (1994). The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that when an alleged consumer fraud consists of an omission of material fact, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with knowledge, and intent is an essential element. The seminal New Jersey decision pertaining to nondisclosure is Weintraub v. Krobatsch, 64 N.J. 445 (1974). The Supreme Court held that deliberate concealment of a latent defective condition material to the transaction constitutes sufficient grounds to justify rescission of a contract to purchase realty. See Correa v. Maggiore 196 N.J. Super. 273 (1984) Since rendition of that opinion, this principle has been expanded to permit recovery of monetary damages and has been applied in a broad variety of circumstances. See e.g., Jewish Center of Sussex Cty. v. Whale, 86 N.J. 619 (1981); Carlsen v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan, 80 N.J. 334 (1979); Environmental Protection Dep't. v. Ventron Corp., 182 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 1981), modified 94 N.J. 473, 468 A.2d 150 (1983); Neveroski v. Blair, 141 N.J. Super. 365, 358 A. 2d 473 (App. Div. 1976); Berman v. Gurwicz, 178 N.J. Super. 611 (Ch. Div. 1981); Tobin v. Paparone Const. Co., 137 N.J. Super. 518 (L. Div 1975)
In Strawn v. Canuso, 140 N.J. 43, 65 (1995), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a residential builder, developer and broker were liable to homebuyer’s for non-disclosure of off-site physical conditions known to the defendants, which were unknown to the buyer. The silence of the defendants created a mistaken impression by the purchasers. In Strawn, the defendants used sales promotion brochures, newspaper advertisements and fact sheets to sell the homes. The materials portrayed the homes in a peaceful, bucolic setting with an abundance of fresh air and clean lakes. Although the promotional materials mentioned how far the properties were from local malls, country clubs and train stations, neither the promotional material nor any of the sales’ representatives referred to a land fill which was located near the development. Id. at 61. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Division’s finding that the defendants’ conduct violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
In Tobin v. Papparone Construction Co., 137 N.J. Super 517 (Law Div. 1995), the Appellate Division held that silence as to the character of the surrounding neighborhood operated to induce the purchasers to buy and the silence as to a material fact was fraudulent. In Berman v. Gerwitz, 189 N.J. Super 89 (Ch. Div. 1981), the Court held that the sellers committed an act of fraud by not disclosing that the complex recreational facilities were separate from their purchase of their condominium. The suppression and withholding of truth is equivalent to a falsehood. The defendants have a duty to recognize material facts and make proper disclosures. Strawn, supra, at 62. (Emphasis added).
Affirmative misrepresentations are actionable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. See, Cox v. Sears, 92 N.J. Super 1, (1994). In order for an affirmative misrepresentation to be actionable under the New Jersey Consumer Act, it must be 1) material to the transaction; 2) fact; and 3) false. See, Gennari v. Weichert Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 607 (1993); Vaccarello v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 2000 W.L. 76404 (App. Div. 2000); Ji v. Palmer, 33 N.J. Super. 451 (App. Div 2000)
A statement is material if: a) a reasonable person would attach importance to its existence in determining a choice of action; b) the maker of the representation knows or has reason to know that if its recipient regards or is likely to regard the matter as important in determining his choice of action although a reasonable man would not so regard it. See, Ji v. Palmer, supra.
In Ji, the Appellate Division held that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff’s Complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case. The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff properly set forth a prima facie case and as such, the trial court was mistaken and the case should be reinstated. In Ji, the plaintiff purchased commercial real estate and alleged that the defendant made an affirmative misrepresentation at closing that the Certificate of Occupancy satisfied the City’s requirement that a Certificate of Land Use be obtained upon transfer of title. The trial court, improperly, dismissed the plaintiff’s case because the plaintiff could not show that the misstatement was made knowingly. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the plaintiff’s were not required to show the defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of his statement or an intent to deceive. The plaintiff sufficiently proved that the defendant made a material misrepresentation of fact, which was false. The Court held: The Consumer Fraud Act is intended to protect consumers from deception and fraud, even when committed in good faith. An intent to deceive is not a prerequisite for the imposition of liability.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish by clear and convincing evidence each of the following elements. First, that defendant made a false representation of fact to him/her. Second, that defendant knew or believed it to be false. Third, that defendant intended to deceive plaintiff. Fourth, that plaintiff believed and justifiably relied upon the statement and was induced by it to (action taken or omitted). Fifth, that as a result of plaintiff's reliance upon the statement, he/she sustained damage. Model Civil Jury Instructions 3.19
Most people do not understand that selling cars is a complicated process wherein the salesman are specially trained to sell cars. They have rehearsed lines. They have specific instructions as to where to stand and where to sit at the dealership. Selling cars is a process. When you understand this it makes buying a car easier.
Are you experiencing any problems with the operation of this car? If you are you are not the only Honda owner complaining. The engine works on a variable management system that shifts cylinder use based in need, varying form three to six cylinders. There appears to be some issue with the operability of these engines with excessive noise and vibration.
The New Jersey Lemon Law would provide a remedy with these vehicles owners under many circumstances and permit a refund of monies paid to acquire these vehicles. If you are experiencing these problems make sure to document in writing the complaints in writing. Do not accept the standard “can not duplicate” mantra form the dealership service representatives. Just remember that the dealership has no real power to take you out of the car without the manufacturer participation. You need to involve the manufacturer zone representatives at the earliest possible moment.
Most people think that the consumer has the right to cancel a car purchase agreement within three days form signing the agreement. This in not true. You cannot cancel a contract but there a few exceptions.
The dealer permits you to cancel the contract within a certain period of time. This is true for some of the manufacturer certified used car programs or even the internal dealer policy.
The car is delivered on a condition agreement before financing is approved. You have the right to get out of the deal.
On lease vehicles you have one business day to cancel unless you waive this as part of the negotiations. This is usually in fine print at the bottom of the lease agreement.
This is the video of an angry customer. This is what happens when a customer gets the upper hand. Hard to believe.
It's never ending. How many of these stories do we see on a daily basis on the internet and read in the newspapers. Charged with fraud. His name is Vahid Sedaghat, 52, and the criminal complaint was filed in Ramsey Country District Court. Please remember innocent until proven guilty?
TECHNOLOGY
Reasonably priced technology assures that dealers are aware of any damage to a car that they sell. An Elcometer. This devise measures the thickness of the paint on the car. There are manufacturer standards for paint thickness. There are standards for consistency on a car. This devise can absolutely warn a dealer if a car was re painted. This raises a red flag that the dealer must take a closer look at the car. They will then see other evidence that the car was wrecked, such as frame repair, over spray or bondo on the car. This is all obvious to anyone with any automotive experience, especially a dealer selling cars for a living. There are also frame machines that can measure even slight imbalances in the frame. There are a reasonably priced option for the dealers selling cars to the public. Don’t you think they should take the steps necessary to assure the cars that they both buy and sell are safe for the publics use? Does not seem to be asking very much? Not really.
The answer is simple: YES YES YES.
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSRTY STANDARDS
Dealers are required to inspect the cars before they sell them to the public. Industry standards mandate this result. They are in the best position and have the expertise to make these safety inspections. This aside, common sense mandates this result. Why would a dealer want to open himself to liability for selling a dangerous car when they had the chance to assure the car was safe? At a minimum they do not want a pissed off customer with many mechanical complaints. Bad for business. Might cost the dealer money in repairs. Might get sued.
Also the dealer has a process for acquiring car from auctions, on trades and by whole sale to assure that the cars are not damaged. Most of the auctions have special designations for damaged cars. Green light means no problem while cars sold under the yellow and red light have problems, mechanical or otherwise. Manheim Auto Auction is the main source of cars for these dealerships and they have a detailed system of disclosure. Manheim actually offers an inspection service for those buying and selling cars at the auction to assure an open and honest market place.
Continue reading " Do Automobile Dealers Know when Cars Have Been in an Accident? Part I " »
According to theledger.com John Giovanetti, former owner of Big Oaks Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. located at Bartow, Florida, was found guilty by a federal jury of wire fraud and bank fraud. According to this story, Mr. Giovanetti was using advances from his credit line to run the dealership rather than acquire vehicles for sale. It was asserted that there were fraudulent documents which were submitted to the finance company, SunTrust, listing vehicles that had already been sold by Big Oaks. The indictments specifically read “that the money obtained from the bank was used to finance their daily operations and support of the owner’s lifestyle.” This just demonstrates that not only do the customers need to be careful but the bank’s lenders as well. Be careful be very careful.
Continue reading " FLORIDA AUTO DEALER FOUND GUILTY OF FRAUD " »
You must be very careful when you buy a used car. There is an entire market place for damaged used cars. Most of the manufacturers have auctions that sell damages cars. There are also entire auctions dedicated to cars that have been totaled or salvaged by insurance companies.
www.iaai.com Insurance Auto Auction (Insurance companies own this one)
www.ctaa.com Car Tech Auction
www.salvagedirect.com Salvage Direct
www.totalresourceauctions.com Manheim subsidiary
This is the description on the Manheim site
Total Resource Auctions, a Manheim company, is committed to delivering a superior salvage auction experience. With a national footprint including Simulcast, dedicated staff, and a greater variety of late model year, lightly damaged vehicles, Total Resource Auctions gives you the customer what you need and how you want it.
Please read this regarding the law on selling damaged cars
Millions of new and used cars are sold every year in this country. It is well known within the industry, that many of the used cars are damaged, ranging form minor body damage to serious frame damage.
Many dealers sell these cars and make a handsome profit. The first issue is what is the dealers liability if they sell these cars?
There are many areas of law that address this liability: Consumer Fraud, Fraud, Breach of Warranty, Lemon Law (New and Used)
FRAUD
The basic premise of fraud is that if the dealer knows about the damage and they think that disclosing the information would make a difference in the consumers purchasing decision they must make the disclosure, whether or not they are asked by the purchaser. There is also liability for reckless disregard, meaning if they intentionally disregard the risk and stick their heads in the sand to avoid learning that the car was damaged there is liability.
CONSUMER FRAUD
The analysis is more complex but for the sake of brevity, if the dealer knew or should have known and failed to disclose this information there is liability under the Consumer Fraud Act. Intent must be proven under this situation.
The dealer can also be sued if the they misrepresented that the car was not in an accident when it actually was, even if they did not know. This is called an affirmative misrepresentation of fact. The dealer as a seller of merchandise is obligated to assure that their representations pertaining to their goods must be accurate
Continue reading " Consumer Fraud and Selling Damaged Cars: Dealer Liability " »
The capacity to mislead is the prime ingredient in all types of consumer fraud. See, Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2,17 (1995).
An excellent example of deceptive, but truthful conduct, is contained in Miller v. American Family Publishing, 284 N.J. Super 67, 76 (App. Div. 1995), where the Court held that the plaintiffs establish a prima facie case and the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. In Miller, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s advertising materials were deceptive and violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in three respects. First, plaintiff said that the defendants deliberately planted the impression that the chances of winning in its sweepstakes were enhanced by ordering a magazine subscription. Second, plaintiffs claimed that those who responded to defendants earlier mailings were, thereafter, urged to submit further responses from misrepresentations that they had survived a “winnowing down” process which had placed them in a select group of finalists and had increased their chances of winning. Thirdly, plaintiffs pointed to defendant’s “alert” to sweepstakes participants who had not ordered the magazines, implying that a continued failure to subscribe would lead to their being dropped from the contest. The Court held as follows:
“ . . . here the entire tenor of the defendant’s promotional literature has the capacity to mislead. It misleads by strongly implying that purchase of a magazine subscription will enhance one’s chances of winning the sweepstakes. It mis-leads by saying (not just implying) that the contestant to whom the mailing is addressed has survived some earlier thinning out process and now has an enhanced likelihood of success in the sweepstakes. And, it misleads by indicating that if the reader does not buy a subscription, he or she will be dropped from any opportunity to win the sweepstakes.” Id. at 83.
The Court held specifically that the defendant’s disclaimers, nor the literal truth of the solicitations, constituted a defense to any of the plaintiffs’ claims. Id. at 84.
Miller was pre-dated by the case of Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, 193 N.J. Super 613 (1984), (App. Div. 1984), wherein the Appellate Division held that the automobile dealership advertising “dealer invoice” prices was inherently deceptive. The Court held as follows:
“When a dealer advertises that he is selling a car for what it costs, the reader can easily be misled into believing that if he purchased the car, he would be getting a bargain, not realizing that the advertiser’s idea of the cost may include a portion of overhead and payment to manufacturers, which would be later refunded.”
As can be seen by the applicable case law, the New Jersey Courts have a long history and strong tradition of prohibiting deceptive conduct.
In respect of what constitutes an "unconscionable commercial practice, this Court explained in Kugler v. Romain that unconscionability is "an amorphous concept obviously designed to establish a broad business ethic." The standard of conduct that the term "unconscionable" implies is lack of "good faith, honesty in fact and observance of fair dealing." Id. at 544, 279 A.2d 640.106. See Herner v. House of America,349 N.J.Super 89 (App.Div 2002)
The model civil jury charge defines the following:
“Deception” is conduct misleading to an average consumer. It does not matter that at a later time it could have been explained to a more knowledgeable and inquisitive consumer, nor need the conduct or advertisement actually have misled the plaintiffs. The fact that the defendants may have acted in good faith is unimportant. It is the capacity to mislead that is important.
“Unconscionable commercial practice” is an activity in the public marketplace which is basically unfair or unjust and/or which materially departs from standards of good faith, honesty in fact and fair dealing. To find a commercial practice to be unconscionable, there should be factual dishonesty and a lack of fair dealing.
“Fraud” is a perversion of the truth, a misstatement or a falsehood communicated to another person creating the possibility that the other person will be cheated
See the model jury instruction for consumer fraud section 4.23
Continue reading " Deceptive Conduct is Actionable " »
The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act should be liberally construed to effectuate it remedial purpose. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was passed in 1960 to permit the Attorney General to combat the increasingly widespread practice of defrauding the consumer. Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 14 (1994) (quoting Senate Committee, Statement to the Senate Bill No. 199 [1960].) The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, states:
“Any act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression or omission, of material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression, or omission in conjunction with the sale . . . or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has, in fact, been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice.
The Consumer Fraud Act was initially designed to combat sharp practices and dealings that victimize consumers by luring them into purchases through fraudulent or deceptive means. Id. at 16. See also, Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management, 289 N.J. Super. 489, 495 (App. Div. 1995). In 1971, it was specifically amended to include a private cause of action with treble damages, giving New Jersey one of the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation. Cox at 15, Lemelledo at 495. Quoting Governor’s Press Release for Assembly Bill No. 2402, at 1 (April 19, 1971): “The Consumer Fraud Act is no longer aimed solely at shifty, fast-talking and deceptive merchants, but reaches non-soliciting artisans as well.” Thus, the Act is designed to protect the public, even when a merchant acts in good faith. Cox at 16.
Both the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Legislature have declared that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act is a remedial statute and, as such, should be construed liberally in favor of consumers. Cox at 16. The Legislative history supports this conclusion, evidenced by two significant Amendments to the Act. In 1962, the Act was amended to include a cause of action for “deceptive practices”. Also, in 1975, the Legislature amended the Act to include unlawful practices in the sale and advertisement of real estate. An analysis of relevant New Jersey law supports the proposition that the Consumer Fraud Act should be liberally in an expansive fashion to protect the consumer for potentially deceptive conduct.
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act is one of the strongest Consumer statutes in the country. It provides for mandatory triple damages and attorney fees if you are successful. The posts in this category are primarily for lawyers or those writing briefs on the Act. I will include both basic and more advanced points of law. Good luck.
Carton and Rudnick is a law firm located in Red Bank/Middletown New Jersey and has extensive experience in litigating against car dealerships and other defendants using the Consumer Fraud Act.
This video is very funny and you will definitely laugh. who wouldn't like to do this?
Purchasing a car is like purchasing a house in many ways:
You apply for credit.
Your credit is run.
Credit is granted or denied based on your ability to pay (credit score) and asset value (loan to asset value)
Your credit score might be affected when you credit is run.
The finance manager know exactly what the lender is looking for to have credit approved. The video says the rest:
Be careful when you sign documents and read everything. Never trust anyone at the dealership that they will do as they say.
Continue reading " Subprime Lending on Car Financing " »
I was surfing the net for interesting stories pertaining to auto fraud and I am never shocked. I guess there is this well know chain of oil change stores in California that was allegedly taking some shortcuts. It appears that they were recommending services that were not needed according to this news story.
I guess the issue is how do you protect yourself form this type of conduct?
Get a second opinion or even educate yourself on the work that is being performed? This is a very though thing to recommend. Who has the time to make sure they are not taken advantage of of when they get an oil change. The only way to really make sure is to do it yourself.
Continue reading " EZ Lube Investigation Undercover Video(Auto Repair Fraud) " »
