Articles Posted in Auto Fraud

Does a business such as a law firm, gas station, boutique or other ongoing business entity have the right to sue under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud (CFA) (UDAP) Act when they have been a victim of consumer fraud? YES

The answer is yes under most circumstances. The courts have interpreted the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to apply to businesses (as a plaintiff) as they acting a a regular consumer. If a business is like in consumer and consuming a good then they are able to pursue a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. This business would have the same rights as any other person which would be triple damages, attorney’s fees and costs. This would be assuming that the business demonstrate an ascertainable loss related to the fraudulent conduct. Just because plaintiff is a business does not rule them out from being a plaintiff in a case.

The sole issue is whether or not the business is acting as a consumer or business. As an example, there was a case which was decided in the New Jersey courts that held as a re seller of ink cartridges there were no claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In that transaction the court held that business which had filed suit under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was acting as a business and reselling the ink cartridges rather than consuming them.

Continue reading ›

Does New Jersey have a Lemon Law? Yes there is a new and used car lemon law that can be filed in Superior Court or in Administrative Court … – The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick LLC – Google+

Source: Does New Jersey have a Lemon Law? Yes there is a new and used car lemon law …

A New Jersey jury on Thursday awarded $2.9 million to a class of surgical technology students who alleged Star Career Academy misrepresented their career prospects in the wake of a 2012 law that imposed stricter accreditation standards on the profession.

Source: NJ Jury Renders $2.9M Verdict Against School In Fraud Case – Law360

arbitration

Opposition to the defendants attempt to force arbitration

Dear Judge   xxxxx:

Please accept the following brief in lieu of a more formal brief thereof.
This litigation arises out of the plaintiff’s alleged refinance of two separate vehicles from the defendant, CAR DEALER. (See Exhibit A: Complaint, Count 1, paragraph 1). The vehicles involved were a 2010 Nissan Pathfinder and a 2010 Nissan Sentra, two separate vehicles, two separate transactions. (See Exhibit A). The plaintiff has alleged that these two separate and distinct transactions were subject to inappropriate conduct by the defendant and the plaintiff has sustained damages in each specific transaction.
The defendant relies upon the attached arbitration clause that states:

“The Parties, customer and dealer, identified below, hereinafter collectively *** agreed to settle by arbitration any claim, dispute or controversy, including all federal and state statutory or non-statutory claims that may arise out of the sale related to the finance and purchase and re lease of the vehicle identified below.” See Exhibit B, arbitration agreement At the bottom of the Arbitration Agreement, it lists the vehicle with the last five numbers in the vehicle identification number as 12984. It is apparent, that the Arbitration Agreement identified by the defendant applies to the plaintiff’s transaction for the used 2010 Nissan Sentra, vehicle identification no. 12984. Thus, as such, even if the Court were willing to assume there is a valid Arbitration Agreement and it is enforceable, the defendant should be bound by the terms of the agreement and have to arbitrate disputes related to the Nissan Sentra.

Continue reading ›

crashed car

FACTS – SUMMATION

The plaintiff has proved that the defendant has committed fraud/consumer fraud. The dealer advised the plaintiff that the car was without accident both verbally and in writing. The plaintiff proved (CARFAX) and it was admitted (Defense expert testimony) that the car was in a previous accident. Defense only disputed severity of the accident. Defense expert and the General Manager admitted that the dealer probably knew of the prior damage. He actually testified that the dealer did know that the car was in an accident. The car was inspected by used car manager, technicians, certification process (Lexus trained techs looking for accident damage) and elcometer use on car acquisitions. (THE USED CAR MANAGER NEVER TURNED UP TO TESTIFY) Even more significant is that this was a dealer not a Chevy dealer!! Who would be in a better position to know that the car was not in MFGR-HIGHLINE- FRONT LINE CONDITION? Nobody. The dealer’s claim or assertion of ignorance as to any prior damage is both insulting and incredulous. The Manufacturer representative testified that bondo should not be used on certified cars (not Lexus quality repair) and any through panel penetration would render a car non-certifiable. (This was his initial testimony and then there was a break and Ms. Lawyer asked him the same question and his answer mysteriously changed)

Continue reading ›

NEW JERSEY LAW AND THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

NO DIRECT CONTACT IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CONSUMER

 

THE DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION THAT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DIRECTLY SELL OR HAVE ANY DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE LAW, INCLUDING THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

A. NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP OR CONTRACT IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT TO MAINTAIN A CLAIM UNDER THE CFA

The lack of a contractual relationship or privity does not automatically defeat a the plaintiff’s claim. The determination of whether a duty exists is generally considered a matter of law to be decided by the court. Carvalho v. Toll Bros. and Developers, supra, 143 N.J. at 572; S.P. v. Collier High School, 319 N.J.Super. 452, 467,(App.Div.1999). The assessment of fairness and policy “involves identifying, weighing, and balancing several factors-the relationship of the parties, the nature of the attendant risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and the public interest in the proposed solution” Zielinsky v. Professional Appraisals 326 N.J.Super 219 (App.Div 1999).
There is no privity requirement to maintain a cause of action under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In Alloway v. General Marine Ind., 149 N.J. 620 (1997), the Supreme Court held that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not require privity to maintain a cause of action. In Alloway, the plaintiff purchased a defective boat, which was built by the (manufacturer) defendant. The plaintiff instituted suit against the manufacturer and other defendants for tort (negligence) and warranty claims. The Court dismissed the tort claims and permitted the plaintiff to proceed on the warranty claims, holding that privity was required for tort claims, but not for warranty type claims. The underpinnings of the decision were that the plaintiff had statutory avenues of remedy including, but not limited to, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to address economic injuries to property. Id. at 639 – 640. The Court specifically left unanswered whether or not tort or contract law applies to a product that poses a risk of causing personal injuries or property damage, but has caused only economic loss to the product itself.
The trend in the application of the Consumer Fraud Act has been to expand liability to those “upstream, in the chain of commerce,” including but not limited to remote suppliers of component parts whose products are passed on to a buyer and its representations are made to, or intended to be conveyed to the ultimate purchaser. Perth Amboy Iron Works v. Amhouse, 226 N.J. Super 200, 211 (App. Div. 1998).

Continue reading ›

CPO DAMAGED CAR

Plaintiff, JOHN DOE

Vs.
FAMILY AUTO GROUP, MANUFACTURER,

 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

The plaintiff, residing in Edison, New Jersey, says by way of complaint against the defendants as follows:

1.Family Auto Group, of East Brunswick, was a corporation licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey.
2. On or about that date, the defendant, the manufacturer, was also a corporation licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey.
3. On or about that date, the plaintiff acquired a used 2011 Acura MDX black, with 30,711 miles.
4. The vehicle was represented as a certified pre-owned vehicle and of higher quality than other certified pre-owned vehicles.
5. It was also specifically represented that the vehicle was not involved in any prior automobile accidents. The literature indicating that the vehicle was of higher quality and not in a prior automobile accident were both from the manufacturer and/or the selling dealer indicating that the vehicle was of higher quality than other used vehicles. The selling dealer specifically stated that the vehicle had not been in a prior automobile accident.
6. The plaintiff signed various documents including a retail installment sales contract and a buyer’s order to acquire the vehicle which the purchase price was 40,500.
7. As part of the transaction, the defendant dealership and/or the manufacturer issued a certified pre-owned warranty which the plaintiff paid a dollar amount for which is not disclosed in the appropriate paperwork. Continue reading ›

What information is contained in a CARFAX report

Many people are curious as to where Carfax gets all the information. Fortunately, the company who collects this information, Carfax, has placed the sources of their information on their website. One only needs to look at the website to determine if  the source for all the information is accurate. The interesting item on this is the information from insurance companies. Many times people think that all accidents or all claims that are involved with insurance companies get reported to Carfax. According to the Carfax site this is not the case. According to the Carfax site only the information which results in salvage or junk titles gets reported. There is no specific delineation, no specific indication, that any and all claims that are paid on vehicles are reported to Carfax. As an example:  There is an automobile accident and a vehicle receives damage and must be repaired which is paid for by the insurance company. The vehicle is not salvaged or total. One would think that this information should be or would be available to Carfax. According to the website this information is not available to Carfax. The accident report created by the police department might indicate an accident. But without this police reported accident and without this salvage title or junk title being issued it does not appear that in this information be reported. In my experience this is a common misconception with regard to the information contained in and reported on and through Carfax is. Carfax is an excellent resource to look at as far as the background of a vehicle. However it is imperative that you understand the entire data gathering process that is undergone in creating these reports. Nicely, Carfax has created on their website in place to examine all the sources of information. Once you look at this you can determine whether or not you find it personally useful.

The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick LLC is a consumer law law firm

The following is part of TILA or Truth In Lending and addresses cash against credit transactions:

 

 TILA (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.18(d), (e)): The failure to disclose the warranty and the cost of the GPS device as finance charges was a violation of regulation Z (12 C.F.R. § 1026.1), which implements TILA. “Regulation Z requires that the creditor provide consumers of closed-end credit, such as retail installment sales contracts, with clear and conspicuous written credit disclosures, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.17, including the finance charge and the APR. 12 C.F.R. § 1026.18(d), (e).” The finance charge is defined by Regulations Z as “any charge payable directly or indirectly by the consumer and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to or a condition of the extension of credit. It does not include any charge of a type payable in a comparable cash transaction.” Since only the credit consumers were subjected to these charges they amounted to finance charges under Regulation Z, and thus violated TILA.