NJ Consumer Fraud Act & Damages: Whats wrong with this picture?
The Courts continue to interpret the Consumer Fraud Act in such a way that limits the remedial nature of the act. Courts have been strictly applying breach of contract principles to the damages analysis. The issue is what is the ascertainable loss that is recoverable under the act? The Court has been requiring a benefit of the bargain analysis. As an example, if you buy a product that costs you $100 and it is worth $40 you damages are $60. Or maybe you purchased the product for $100 and you sold it for $60 your damages would be $40.
Here is the problem. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act is not breach of contract and should not be analyzed as a breach of contract. The Act was in addition to the remedies that already existed. So lets answer this, why are the breach of contract damages the same as fraud damages? I don't know. This analysis gives the defendant the benefit of his improper conduct. Why should the defendant get to keep the profit or get any benefit of the sale? I don't know? Why does the plaintiff have to pay for experts, costs that are not reimbursed under the Act, and not be able to afford to pursue the claim? I don't know.
I do have an answer that makes sense.
