New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

US Supreme Court Decision on Arbitration

Recently, the US Supreme Court decided a significant arbitration case. The issue is whether or not the Federal Arbitration Act permitted the waiver of class action claims in a consumer contract. At the state level under the state laws, the states were divided as to whether or not a consumer could waive the right to a class action. Specifically, under New Jersey Law, the Supreme Court had held that the waiver of class action claims under certain circumstances were unconscionable. Thus, even if a selling dealer or manufacturer had a class action provision in the contract prohibiting the plaintiff to participate in a class action, this “clause” was not enforceable as part of the contract. There are specifically two cases, which were entitled "Delta Funding" and "Mohammad."

The US Supreme Court held, however, that the policy underlying the Federal Arbitration Act and the expeditious resolution of disputes took precedence over the public policy behind class actions. In addition, the Court held that class actions could not be appropriately handled in the arbitration contacts. As an example, if there was an arbitration clause but no waiver of class action, various attorneys could potentially or were within the right to file a class action in the arbitration forum. JAMS and AAA had their specific provisions for arbitrating class actions. The Supreme Court held that the risks of mistakes were too great and thus determined that class actions could not be arbitrated.

In essence, the class action in the context of a Consumer Agreement is a thing of the past unless there is contrary legislation. The Supreme Court in essence felt that the policy underlying arbitration was sufficient to warrant the waiver of class actions; however, it was not ready to say that the arbitration forums are ready to handle class action arbitration.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Lawyer

Originally, I filed a law suit against the new Chrysler Corporation with regard to a vehicle which was purchased by a current client of mine. The client experienced numerous issues with this vehicle including transmission, brakes and electrical problems. My client is alleging that there were numerous repairs on the breaks during the first 34,000 miles. Specifically, my client had to get authorization and claim number from Chrysler before any repairs would be done. We have been doing research on the internet and are attempting to discern the nature and extent of numerous prior problems by any 2008 Town & Country owners.

If you are a Town & Country owner, 2008, and have any complaints, communications with the manufacturer, communications with the selling dealer or other e-mail communications, please contact this law firm so that we might discuss obtaining this information from you.

Under New Jersey law, for a Lemon Law claim, the plaintiff is obligated to prove under certain circumstances that the use, value and safety of a vehicle have been substantially impaired. The claims in this case revolve around defective brakes, defective transmission and a defective electrical system, and the plaintiff is alleging that the use, value and safety have been substantially impaired.

Again, we would greatly appreciate anyone with experience and/or information on a 2008 Town & Country and their communications with the manufacturer, contact us to provide same, and your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.

Read this: Service Bulletin from the manufacturer.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: 2008 Town and Country , Lemon Law Lawyer

ANTI-CONSUMER LEGISLATION IS COMING SOON TO YOU HERE IN NEW JERSEY

The New Jersey Assembly and the Senate have introduced bills that would permanently and prohibitively make New Jersey an anti-consumer forum and roll back years of consumer protection laws which have accumulated benefits for thousands, if not millions, of New Jersey consumers.

A3333 which has been introduced into the State Assembly and parallel introduction of S2538 into the State Senate are anti-consumer and significantly reduce consumers’ rights in the State of New Jersey.

These bills destroy consumer protections which have been established through the years by both the legislature and the court. Initially, there is a very good chance that the interpretation of these new laws will prohibit any and all lawsuits and exempt car dealerships from the protection of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

CAR DEALERS WILL NOW BE PROTECTED

The provision of the bill which would arguably protect car dealerships and most businesses from the reach of the Consumer Fraud Act would be an exemption for businesses which are already regulated, such as the Federal Trade Commission, Division of Banking and Insurance, or other administrative agencies. Since car dealerships are arguably regulated by the Division of Banking and Insurance, the Division of Motor Vehicles, and arguably come within the reach of the Federal Trade Commission, they would argue that they are exempted from legislation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act since they are already extensively regulated.

This provision will take away the private right of action or, in similar terms, the right for a consumer to sue a car dealership if they are ripped off or subject to deceptive practices. This applies to advertising, finance fraud and used car dealership fraud. This would arguably repeal extensive legislation which has already been established and set forth by the legislature and the assembly. This is just one provision of the new law which would affect New Jersey consumers.

There would also be an abolishment of the mandatory triple damages and it would be at the discretion of the trial judge. This is not set forth with any particularity so as to provide a trial judge with any guidance as to how to triple the damages. However, nonetheless, the changes in the Consumer Fraud Act would encourage fraudulent and deceptive conduct rather than discourage fraudulent and deceptive conduct.

Businesses which are hardworking and honest would be forced to change their mode of operation due to the lowered standard and low cost entry for deceptive businesses.

If two car dealerships were on the same street and one car dealership was using deceptive acts and practices to sell cars and exempted from the Consumer Fraud Act, the honest and hardworking dealership would be forced to do the same. Would this be considered a fair leveling of the field and evening of the competition? I think not. This is a foolish legislation, blatantly anti-consumer, and would help no one.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud