Consumer Arbitration. Consumer Fraud. Damaged Cars.
Consumer Arbitration. Consumer Fraud
In this case, the plaintiff was asserting that the dealership made affirmative misrepresentations or false promises that the vehicle had previously not been in an automobile accident. The vehicle that was purchased by my client was a Lexus GS with 84,000 miles. As part of the transaction, the dealership representatives provided my client with a CARFAX which indicated there were no prior accidents in the CARFAX history. Therefore, the purchaser of the vehicle relying upon the CARFAX assumed that the vehicle did not have any prior accidents.
After my client was driving the vehicle for a period of time, she learned that the vehicle was in fact in a prior accident when it was looked at by another auto body shop. The petitioner alleged that when she returned to the dealership and complained of the problems, the dealership failed to help her and failed to repurchase the vehicle.
The petitioner then accessed CARFAX and it appeared as though the vehicle had been in two prior automobile accidents. The question was why CARFAX had not reported the vehicle with an accident at the time of the sale. The answer is relatively simple and that this information was not in the CARFAX database at the time of the sale to the plaintiff. Thus, the dealer took the position that they were unaware of the prior automobile accident. The plaintiff produced an expert who testified that had the dealership looked at the vehicle carefully they would have known the vehicle was in an automobile accident. It took some time but acquired the police report and then the record of the automobile accidents for which there was actually three. The sum of the total prior accident damage on the vehicle was approximately $15,000.
The issue in the arbitration is whether or not the dealership knew or should have known of the automobile accidents and whether or not the CARFAX was an affirmative misrepresentation or a false promise. Under New Jersey Law, there is no requirement that a false promise or an affirmative misrepresentation be within the knowledge of the defendant. In addition, good faith is not a defense in this regard.
Ultimately, the arbitrator decided that the dealership committed an act of consumer fraud by selling this Lexus with 84,000 miles with three prior accidents. The arbitrator determined that the CARFAX constituted an affirmative misrepresentation which is actionable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The arbitrator then tripled the damages as required under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud and awarded counsel fees. This determination by the arbitrator is probably a matter of public record within the American Arbitration Association guidelines. I think that they keep a record of all the arbitrations, however, I am uncertain as to the method by which these documents might be obtained.
Carton and Rudnick family law
Carton and Rudnick consumer law
Carton and Rudnick
