Used Cars
Computer Sales
Debt Collection
Internet Sales / Goods
Telecommunications
Home Improvement Repair - General
Health Spas / Health Clubs
Home Furniture / Furnishings
Car Repair
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.
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.
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.
Many dealerships, of medium to large size have insurance for claims of consumer fraud. One of the largest companies that writes this insurance was Universal Underwriters, which was purchased by Zurich. BUT the coverage , usually only pays for the cost a lawyer and will not pay money to the claimant for any verdict or pay any settlement monies to the plaintiff. Usually this is paid by the dealership out of their pocket.
I have been looking for internet posts for Cherry Hill Triplex litigation. (2006) I found a case that was filed by a law firm alleging that Cherry Hill Triplex committed consumer fraud. The suit alleged that the dealership took advantage of an older person in need of wheel chair assistance. I do not know the current status of the litigation not do I know what the dealer response was to this allegation. I am sure they denied the claims.
I have browsed the net for other people who have had ISSUES with this dealership and there are some unhappy people out there. Read This.
In 2006 the New Jersey Attorney General filed suit against Cherry Hill TriPlex making numerous allegations. You can view the entire press release.. “This company allegedly advertised great deals that, in reality, were not available at its dealerships,” Attorney General Zulima V. Farber said. “This was a typical bait and switch operation. We will not tolerate such deceptive practices.”
How do dealerships continue to operate with complete disregard for the customers on whom they rely to make a profit? At a minimum assuming the dealership is completely innocent and did nothing wrong, they had too many dissatisfied customers.
If you want a copy of the pleadings I would recommend that you send an OPRA request to New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety. OPRA ONLINE FORM.
I do not know the current status of the litigation. The dealership has denied all allegations.
Continue reading "Cherry Hill Triplex Gets Sued by the NJ Attorney Generals Office (2006)" »
I have a pending class action suit in Superior Court of New Jersey alleging that Saturn of Toms River is not providing the employee discount to those who should receive the General Motors employee discount. If you have acquired a car from Saturn Toms River and think that you should have received the employee discount please call my office.
Carton and Rudnick, 262 HWY 35, Red Bank, NJ 07701 (732) 842-2070
Continue reading "Saturn of Toms River NJ" »
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." »
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
Most people do not understand that selling cars is a complicated process wherein the salesman are specially trained to sell cars. They have rehearsed lines. They have specific instructions as to where to stand and where to sit at the dealership. Selling cars is a process. When you understand this it makes buying a car easier.
Most people think that the consumer has the right to cancel a car purchase agreement within three days form signing the agreement. This in not true. You cannot cancel a contract but there a few exceptions.
The dealer permits you to cancel the contract within a certain period of time. This is true for some of the manufacturer certified used car programs or even the internal dealer policy.
The car is delivered on a condition agreement before financing is approved. You have the right to get out of the deal.
On lease vehicles you have one business day to cancel unless you waive this as part of the negotiations. This is usually in fine print at the bottom of the lease agreement.
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.
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" »
Purchasing a car is like purchasing a house in many ways:
You apply for credit.
Your credit is run.
Credit is granted or denied based on your ability to pay (credit score) and asset value (loan to asset value)
Your credit score might be affected when you credit is run.
The finance manager know exactly what the lender is looking for to have credit approved. The video says the rest:
Be careful when you sign documents and read everything. Never trust anyone at the dealership that they will do as they say.
Continue reading "Subprime Lending on Car Financing" »
To understand how dealerships treat consumers you need to understand where they make their money. There is a great site that gives detailed reports on how and where dealers make their money. Certainly worth a look.
http://www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/
During litigation in the American Arbitration Association I discovered that North Plainfield Nissan sold Maintenance Agreements and offered these agreement with the sale of used cars. The price was not disclosed in any of the purchase agreements and there was no documentation that was given to the claimant.
If you have purchased a car from North Plainfield Nissan and you have questions about the transaction I would review the documents for no fee.
Carton & Rudnick is a law firm in Middletown/Red Bank that litigates claims against car dealerships.
I recently litigated a case against North Plainfield Nissan using the American Arbitration Association. The litigant alleged that she was overcharged for the car and also that there were certain misrepresentation made pertaining to the financing.
During the arbitration it was disclosed that my client had "purchased" a "maintenance plan" for about $1,200. She testified that this was never disclosed to her and that she was unaware of the benefits of the plan, which included free oil changes.
The arbitrator found in the claimants favor and awarded a return of the $1,200 plus interests and costs BUT the basis is unknown because he did not award fees or triple the damages as required under NJ law for Consumer Fraud
Continue reading "North Plainfield Nissan and American Arbitration Association" »
