New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

This news story indicates that repossessions and charge offs are way up:

There are very high tech methods to grab you car. Check out this video. They will find your car!!

More repo man

CONSUMER FRAUD CLAIMS AND MOVING COMPANIES

It is not uncommon that people make claims that a moving company has committed fraud or consumer fraud. These claims are usually in the context of improper or inaccurate estimates, improper or inappropriate moving practices and improper or inappropriate billing practices.
As an example, one person might claim that they were quoted one price and were required to pay a different price upon delivery of their goods. There are specific Administrative Code sections applicable to moving companies in the State of New Jersey. However, these regulations, would not be deemed the only avenue of potential standards against a moving company. The generalized New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and deceptive and inappropriate conduct contained under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud would also be applicable to moving companies. As an example, if a moving company were to make an affirmative misrepresentation of fact as to a specific quote and then were to hold goods for ransom if additional monies were not paid, this could potentially be deemed a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, inappropriate conduct and actionable conduct under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. What the ascertainable loss which is a requirement under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act would be an entirely different question.
Thus, when engaging a moving company, make sure that you get all representations in writing and also representations that this is a final and full quote. Many people have contacted my office while the moving companies are in possession of their goods and refusing to deliver the goods unless the consumer signs some additional documentation which indicates that additional charges are appropriate, additional card credit charges authorization are appropriate or a complete release from all liability is signed. Unless the moving company gets this documentation, generally they will not deliver the goods. This places the consumer in a very awkward and uncomfortable position dealing with a moving company that is in possession of their entire inventory of household goods.
If a moving company were to damage goods as opposed to making affirmative misrepresentations of fact, this would be a completely separate claim. There are various limitations against moving companies pertaining to the destruction of goods and the transportation process. This is also known as the Carmack Amendment.
Nonetheless, moving companies are subject to the reaches of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the liberal construction of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to benefit consumers who have been duped or lied to by moving companies.

REPOSSESSION, CAUSES OF ACTION

Under New Jersey law, a company who is repossessing a consumer vehicle has an obligation to comply with all applicable laws. This means that if a repossession company breaches the peace in the context of repossession, the individual who has been aggrieved by this act would have a claim against both the repossession company and the finance company who hired this repossession company. The duty to make sure that there is no breach of the peace is a non-delegable duty. This means that the finance company who has owed the money is ultimately responsible for the actions of the repossession company to make sure that all of the laws are complied within the context of repossession.
Ultimately, the repossession company usually carries an extensive insurance company to cover any conduct with regard to improper repossession. Therefore, if the repossession company, the marketing company and/or the finance company are sued in the context of an improper or wrongful repossession, it is ultimately the insurance company from the repossession company who will be responsible for any and all losses. Many times there are agreements between the repossession company and the finance company with regard to repossession. This means the repossession company has agreed to be responsible, in writing, for any damages associated with the wrongful or inappropriate repossession of a vehicle. This is the way the finance companies protect themselves, with the signed agreement, with repossession company to make sure that there is insurance coverage to cover the finance company. As an example, if a repossession company were to get to a fight with the owner of the vehicle, break in to the owner’s house or conduct other illegal or inappropriate actions, the finance company could ultimately be responsible for any damages in this case since the duty is a non-delegable duty with regard to the repossession. There is also frequently an intermediary company which is hired by the finance company for form out the repossession to another party. Therefore, when investigating these claims, there are frequently additional parties which are not disclosed at the time of the repossession.
The Uniform Commercial Code contains most of the rights and remedies for those being aggrieved of a wrongful repossession. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act would also apply to the wrongful repossession of an automobile. The Uniform Commercial Code contains specific statutory damages if there were to be a wrongful repossession. Statutory damages are required damages to be awarded by the Court if the plaintiff were to prove a wrongful repossession. This is one of the benefits to making these claims. However, there is some dispute under the Uniform Commercial Code as to whether or not attorney’s fees would be recoverable under the Uniform Commercial Code for a wrongful repossession. Nonetheless, the statutory damages could potentially equal the amount of the finance charge with a 10% add-on pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. It is likely that any conduct which would violate the Uniform Commercial Code would also violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act or the Truth in Contract and Warranty Act. As an example, if the repossession company were to lie to an individual who is having the vehicle repossessed stating that they were with the police or an official agency, they would probably be subject to violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as well as the Uniform Commercial Code.

Thus, if a seller of an automobile says that the vehicle has not been in an accident, in fact it has been in an accident, that is an affirmative misrepresentation of fact which is false and inherently has the capacity to mislead a potential purchaser of the vehicle. This should be an actionable representation contemplated under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act for which the plaintiff would be entitled to damages if a case was proved. There are other ways to prove a consumer fraud under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act where good faith might be a defense. As an example, if a plaintiff is claiming a material omission of fact, the plaintiff would be required to prove intent to pursue a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. However, when the plaintiff is alleging an affirmative misrepresentation of fact, good faith is not a defense. As an example, if a dealer were to state that a vehicle was not in an accident and in fact was in an accident, even though they were relying upon a CARFAX or other industry accepted databases or documentation, they would not have a valid defense under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

As an example, there is a case under New Jersey law called Cuesta v. Classic Car. In this specific case, the seller of an automobile sold a vehicle with an inappropriate or improper odometer reading. The Court held that the improper odometer reading created a ‘misrepresentation of fact’ which was actionable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Dealer claimed they were unaware of this rollback, however, this is not deemed a valid defense. This is consistent with the liberal interpretation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the decision by the legislature to place the burden on a business to make sure that the product that they sell is in fact consistent with any representations set forth by the selling dealership or business.

A consumer should be able to rely upon the representations from the business since they are the experts in the field in which the consumer is dealing. It is an entirely separate post to quantify the amount of loss where the appropriate procedure or guidelines for pursuing a claim for consumer fraud under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. However, this post just demonstrates types of claims which can be sued and the obligations upon a business when selling a vehicle product or other consumer goods.

DECEPTION AND THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

The New Jersey Courts have determined and held that the defendant’s acts of good faith are not necessarily a defense to a consumer fraud action. The Courts have held, as set forth in the Model Jury Civil Charges that it is the capacity to mislead that is the important aspect of consumer fraud. What exactly is the capacity to mislead in the context of a consumer transaction?

The business, who sells a product, including a car, is charged with the knowledge of all the associated Administrative Code Regulations. The seller of an automobile or a product is assumed to be knowledgeable in the industry in which they sell a specific product such as a vehicle. Thus, the seller of a product or a vehicle in making certain representations pertaining to that product have a duty/obligation to make sure that those representations and warranties with the product are accurate, complete and not misleading in any way. As previously set forth, it is the capacity to mislead that is important in a consumer fraud claim. Thus, the defendant in a defense to a consumer fraud claim cannot say we did not know, we were not sure or we did the best we could. Again, good faith is not a defense to certain claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The seller of a product is better suited than the purchaser of a product to assure that the representations pertaining to the product are in fact accurate and thus the consumer is not misled.