Damage on Certified Used Cars

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Plaintiff
Vs.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION MONMOUTH COUNTY
DOCKET No.

CIVIL ACTION
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

COUNT I 1. On December 15, 2006, the defendant, XXXXXX, and the defendant, XXXXXXXX, Olds, XXXXXXXXXXXX, were corporations licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey.
2. On that date, the plaintiff acquired a used 2006 XXXXXXXXXX, Vehicle Identification No. XXXXXXXXXXXX, from the defendant, XXXXXXX, which was manufactured and put into the stream of commerce by XXXXXXXX.
3. The vehicle, which was purchased and financed by the plaintiff, was represented to be a “certified vehicle” which the plaintiff understood to mean that the vehicle was of extraordinary quality, thoroughly inspected and thought to be the best of the used cars offered by both XXXXXXXXXXXXX. Although the vehicle was represented to be a used vehicle, the representations from the defendants were that it was as good as a new vehicle. This is based on their procedures and the certification received from XXXXXXXXXXX.
4. The purchase price of the vehicle was $45,371.47, which was financed over a 60 month period at $550 per month. The interest rate on the retail installment sales contract was 5.9%. At the completion of the transactions, the plaintiff will have paid $50,016.20 as a result of the $17,000 which was originally provided as a down payment on the subject automobile. Prior to signing the final retail installment sales contract which purports to “contain the entire agreement between you and us”, the plaintiff signed a “buyer’s order” purporting to represent the purchase price and specify some of the specifics of the transaction. The buyer’s order contained an arbitration clause referring the matter to American Arbitration Association.
5. After the transaction, the plaintiff acquired a CARFAX which revealed that the vehicle was in an accident on or about July 24, 2006 prior to the purchase. Subsequent to the accident, the vehicle was sold at auction worth $3,396 on September 26, 2006.
6. It is believed that the defendant dealership as well as defendant manufacturer had access to CARFAX at all times. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant dealership was specifically aware of the prior accident on the vehicle as a result of the entry in CARFAX.
7. As part of the transaction, the plaintiff received a detailed inspection checklist asserting that the defendants committed to and subjected the vehicle to an extensive inspection.
8. The plaintiff, subsequent to the transaction, discovered that the vehicle was in an accident, confronted the dealership and asked to rescind the transaction. The selling dealership refused to rescind the transaction.
9. A subsequent analysis the vehicle has revealed that there was an area of impact on the left front including front bumper, radiator support, hood, left fender and the unibody. Various areas were refinished as a result of repairs including the front bumper, hood, left and front fenders, left and right front doors and left inner fender top rail. The plaintiffs assert that there is frame damage on the subject vehicle which was not disclosed at any time and as a matter of fact, the representations by the selling dealership were that the vehicle was in perfect condition as backed by both the dealership and xxxxxxxxxx.
10. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants committed acts of fraud and consumer fraud insofar as the used vehicle, which was as good as a new vehicle, actually had been involved in an automobile accident which was known to the defendants through their examination of the vehicle and their access to CARFAX. The defendants either omitted this fact or misrepresented the condition of the vehicle to the contrary. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants’ conduct constituted fraud and consumer fraud in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, resulting in damages to the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest and costs of the suit with punitive damages.

COUNT II Rescission 1. The plaintiff reasserts the previous facts as if set forth at length herein.
2. Subsequent to purchasing the vehicle, the plaintiff returned to the selling dealership and demanded a return of all monies. Then a letter was sent from counsel demanding a return of all monies. No such return of monies was forthcoming as requested and, as such, the plaintiff demands rescission together with interest and costs of the suit.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands rescission together with interest and costs of the suit.

COUNT III Breach of Warranty 1. The plaintiff reasserts the previous facts as if set forth at length herein.
2. At all times hereinafter, the defendants violated both the express and implied warranties as set forth under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New Jersey Law. This resulted in damages to the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest and costs of the suit.

COUNT IV Consumer Fraud – Certified Warranty 1. The plaintiff reasserts the previous facts as if set forth at length herein.
2. At all times hereinafter, the plaintiff acquired a vehicle which was a certified used vehicle. It is believed that the “certification” was a product which was purchased by the plaintiff and was nothing more than a warranty. The fact that the plaintiff was purchasing a warranty was not disclosed to her. Plaintiff assumed and was told that the vehicle was a certified used vehicle which contained a warranty. The plaintiff was never told that she could have declined the manufacturer’s warranted coverage and just purchase the vehicle without such a warranty. In the alternative, the plaintiff would have been in the position to negotiate the specific price on the warranty. Moreover, under the New Jersey Used Car Lemon Law, the defendants are required to disclose all relevant terms of the warranty. This includes both price and terms. The defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as a result of their failure to do so. This resulted in damages to the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest and costs of the suit.

COUNT IV Truth in Lending 1. The plaintiff reasserts the previous facts as if set forth at length herein.
2. The Truth in Lending Act requires that the disbursement of all monies paid to others be specifically set forth in the retail installment sales contract. An item in this particular transaction which was paid to others was money paid to XXXXXXXX or a supplier of the certified warranty. No such disclosure was made and/or contained in the retail installment sales contract. The defendants’ failure to do so resulted in statutory damages entitling the plaintiff to counsel’s fees and costs of the suit. Plaintiff is also entitled to actual and consequential damages.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest and costs of the suit.