New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

Many of my clients ask this question all the time. Should I file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or Consumer Affairs?

The answer is no. It is a waste of time. Any resolution is basically voluntary. They really cannot force anybody to do anything such as paying the claimant damages. The only benefit is that the you will receive some information that you might be able to use late in civil litigation. Almost all of the clients who come to me have been unsatisfied with the process and the results.

Monmouth County Consumer Affairs

Better Business Bureau

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud

Bookmark:

Used Cars

Computer Sales

Debt Collection

Internet Sales / Goods

Telecommunications

Home Improvement Repair - General

Health Spas / Health Clubs

Home Furniture / Furnishings

Car Repair

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Complaints , Car Dealership Fraud , Car Salesman Pay Plan Lawsuits , Damaged Cars , Dealership Litigation , Investigations , Lemon Law , New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act , Recalls

Bookmark:

I like to keep track of dealership employees that have been in trouble. The same old tricks. He was adding additional products to leases to increase commissions and line his car salesman's pocket. He was increasing his commissions at the expense of the customer.

His name is Duane C. Clark, 55, of Kansas City formerly employed as general manager of John Chezik Homerun, Inc, d/b/a John Chezik Honda according to the article. If you feel that you have been taken advantage of by this dealership you should seek legal counsel.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud

Bookmark:

The Truth in Lending Act is liberally construed to protect consumers” Burnett v. Ala Moana Pawn Shop, 3 F.3d 1261, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Congress enacted the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (TILA)) in recognition that uniform credit disclosures would enhance "the competition among the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extension of consumer credit," and "assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit." (15 U.S.C. § 1601(a).) In this regard, TILA protects consumers from inaccurate and unfair credit practices. (Ibid.; (D.N.M.1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1232.) To address the problem of buried finance charges, Regulation Z extends TILA's coverage to all credit transactions " 'for which either a finance charge is or may be imposed.' " (1974) 12 Cal.3d 915, 920, 117 Cal.Rptr. 541, 528 P.2d 357, citing former 12 C.F.R. § 226.2(k).) TILA's purposes have led the courts to strictly enforce its requirements as well as those of Regulation Z. 12 F.Supp.2d at p. 1232.)

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud

Bookmark:

The Asbury Park Press is reporting that there have been indictments of Michael Kouvaras, 55, of Maplewood and Salvatore Rivello, 56, of Matawan. They were indicted for theft by deception, identity theft, deceptive business practices and defrauding secured creditors. I will be getting a copy of the indictment form the Prosecutors Office so as to comment further. The dealership was Chrysler of Eatontown according to the Press. Will follow up with details.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , Dealership Litigation , Investigations , New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

Bookmark:

The national Consumer Law Center has participated in extensive litigation against some of the largest finance companies in the world alleging that the impact of the loans was to discriminate against either African American or Hispanic consumers. The lawsuits, which exposed practices operated secretly for over 75 years and had resulted in higher-interest rate car loans for minorities, have transformed car financing practices across the industry.

Here is a list of all the suits in which they have participated.

Baltimore v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp
Smith v. Daimler Chrysler Financial
FMCC (Joyce Jones, et al. v. Ford Motor Credit Company)
GMAC (Coleman v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation)
NMAC (Cason v. Nissan Motors Acceptance Corporation)
AHFC (Terry Willis, et al v. American Honda Finance Corporation)
Borlay v. Primus Automotive Financial Services, Inc. and Ford Motor Credit Company
Bank Auto Finance Discrimination Cases

The problem occurred in the selling dealerships right to mark up interest rates which is primarily unregulated by the lenders or the Federal Government. Studies revealed that the dealership conduct in marking up the interest rates on car purchases and financing for Hispanics and African Americans. There was a study performed to prove this fact.

All the settlements, if any, were done without admissions of any wrong doing and the finance companies have ALWAYS denied any wrong doing.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , Dealership Litigation , Investigations , New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

Bookmark:

You have a range of choices none of which are really attractive.

Return to the dealership and confront the management. You need to be very confident and have the ability to negotiate against skilled salesman and do it under stress. You don't have a chance. You know it and the dealer knows it. STAY AWAY. Not recommended.

File a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or the Consumer Affairs Office in your county. They have no ability to force the dealership to do anything. Its all voluntary. Just a further waste of your valuable time.

Hire an attorney and file a lawsuit. This is usually you best option EXCEPT it is hard to find a lawyer that sues car dealership and even harder to find an attorney with significant experience who will not charge an arm and a leg. If you find the right attorney this is your best option.

The consumer laws in New Jersey are expansive and powerful. The Consumer Fraud Act provides for triple damages and counsel fees if you win. This is the only thing that the dealer will understand.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Complaints , Car Dealership Fraud , Dealership Litigation , Investigations , New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

Bookmark:

This depends on you comfort level in negotiating with experienced salesman and you ability to have the car inspected that you are purchasing. As a general matter, in my opinion, this is not a good purchase. The term "Certified" means almost nothing. In the context of a used car sale it only means that the manufacturer has issued a warranty on you car and has required the dealer to perform some extensive inspection. Remember this is not free. There is a charge for this warranty, whether the dealer tells you or not. You are purchasing this warranty. Then the dealer tries to sell you an extended service plan. What a joke.

First of all shouldn't the dealer have to inspect the car before they sell the car to the public? Why is this extra? Just purchase you own warranty on the internet and have the car inspected by your own mechanic.

Here is a listing of all the major manufacturers certified used car programs.

After all this is done you might discover that the car was damaged.

I have litigated many consumer fraud claims where the dealer sold a certified used car that was damaged. I have litigated claims where new cars have been damaged.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , Car Salesman Pay Plan Lawsuits

Bookmark:

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." »

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , Dealership Litigation , New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act , Video

Bookmark:

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

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , Dealership Litigation , New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

Bookmark:

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?

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , Damaged Cars , Dealership Litigation

Bookmark:

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" »

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , Damaged Cars , Dealership Litigation , New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

Bookmark:

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" »

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud

Bookmark:

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.

General Motors Auction

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

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , Damaged Cars

Bookmark:

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" »

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , Damaged Cars , Lemon Law

Bookmark:

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.

Continue reading "The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Must be Liberally Construed to Effectuate its Remedial Purpose" »

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Dealership Fraud , New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

Bookmark: