Cherry Hill Triplex

The Attorney General’s office has filed suit against Cherry Hill Triplex for violation for the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Cherry Hill Triplex is contesting the charges and asserts their innocence. The State has the burden to prove the case and Cherry Hill is presumed innocent until such time that the State proves their case. The lawsuit asserts that Cherry Hill Triplex violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. A copy of the complaint can be obtained from the Attorney General’s Office.

Count I Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
a. Advertising a guaranteed and/or unconditional $8,000.00 trade-in allowance,
then failing to give consumers $8,000.00 for their trade-in vehicles;
b. Advertising that a consumer would qualify for credit, then failing to provide credit to the consumer;
c. Failing to honor the advertised sale and/or lease price terms of a motor vehicle;
d. Failing to accurately credit trade-in allowances and/or deposits made for motor vehicle sales and/or leases;
e. Failing to payoff consumers’ trade-in vehicles in a timely manner;
f. Failing to provide title and/or registration prior to the expiration of temporary title and/or registration;
g. Failing to return a consumer’s trade-in vehicle upon cancellation of a sale or lease transaction;
h. Advertising for sale used motor vehicles without possessing title to the motor vehicles; and i. Selling used motor vehicles without possessing title to the motor vehicles.

Count II Material Omission of fact

a. Promising or guaranteeing an $8,000 trade-in allowance;
b. Misrepresenting the terms and conditions of the advertised “$8,000 GUARANTEED FOR YOUR TRADE,” “$8,000 Trade-In Sale” and “$8,000 for your trade, regardless of its condition” deals;
c. Misrepresenting to consumers in television advertising that Defendant will provide financing for the sale or lease of a motor vehicle without conducting a credit check or regardless of a consumer’s credit;
d. Misrepresenting to consumers in print advertisements the number of new and/or used motor vehicles that are available for sale or lease at an advertised price;
e. Misrepresenting to consumers the previous use of a used motor vehicle;
f. Misrepresenting to consumers in television advertising that the first seventy (70) callers would “instantly qualify” for financing; and g. Misrepresenting the lowest APR available to the consumer.

Defendant’s conduct in violation of the CFA includes, but is not limited to, the following knowing omissions of material fact:

a. Failing to disclose to consumers, prior to their purchase or lease, that a motor vehicle had previously been used as a rental vehicle; and b. Failing to disclose to consumers prior to their purchase or lease any prior damage to the motor vehicle.

Count III Advertising Regulation Violations

a. Using the phrase “$8,000 GUARANTEED FOR YOUR TRADE” and then failing to include the actual limitations adjacent to that offer;
b. Failing to disclose, adjacent to Defendant’s advertised price for new and/or used motor vehicles, that Defendant’s advertised price includes deductions for a manufacturer’s rebate and/or dealer’s discount;
c. Failing to disclose, immediately adjacent to Defendant’s advertised special offer, the applicable time period;
d. Failing to disclose that advertised motor vehicles were previously damaged and were subjected to substantial repair and body work;
e. Failing to disclose limitations and qualifiers to Defendant’s credit sale;
f. Failing to place a footnote next to an advertisement that places numerous limitations on the advertised purchase price; and g. Using small print, graphic illustration and location to obscure material facts in its advertisements.

Count IV Failure to Make Credit Sale Disclosures

a. Failing to disclose the annual percentage rate in its credit sale advertisements;
and b. Failing to disclose the total cost of motor vehicles in its installment sale advertisements.