OPENING STATEMENT
May it please the Court,
This case is about deception, trust, and accountability. My client Mr Smith walked into The defendant dealership to purchase a new vehicle—one free from defects, prior accidents, and hidden damage. The dealership’s salesman assured my client—without hesitation—that the car was exactly that: new, accident-free, and in pristine condition. Relying on that representation, my client paid top dollar for what they believed was a vehicle in flawless condition.
Auto fraud remains a persistent issue in New Jersey, with deceptive dealerships, hidden vehicle defects, title-washing schemes, and financing fraud among the most common scams. Fortunately, state laws provide strong consumer protections, allowing victims to seek remedies when they’ve been misled.
This article examines New Jersey’s legal framework on auto fraud, recent enforcement actions, and what consumers should watch out for.
Auto Fraud Under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA)
I just updated my webpage to include an example of an opening statement in a trial against the car dealership for selling a car, used car with prior damage. Ordinarily, this takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes depending on how the court schedules the opening statements. This is the usual length of the trial in case which might last 3 or 4 days. Defense opening statement which goes 2nd at trial, would also be about 15 to 20 minutes.
This is an example of an opening statement, and a trial, where the plaintiff purchased the vehicle and the dealer told him the car was not in an accident. The plaintiff later discovered that the car was in an accident. This is an example of what I might tell the jury in a similar or substantially similar case. Each case is completely different but this auto fraud case is a bit of the standard fact pattern and has many common factors across cases I have handled.
Consumer Fraud and False Advertising:
Guaranteed Credit Approval. Financing Guaranteed. We finance Anyone. We will Get it Done.
Guarantee Credit Approval. Be wary and get help if you see this advertisement
You hear those advertisements all the time on the radio and TV. Credit Guaranteed. All you need is a job and pay stub. Rebuild your credit. Any deal.
There is no such thing as guaranteed credit. There is no such thing as guaranteed credit approval. Each and every transaction must be reviewed by a bank or lending source. The bank or the lending source make a decision to extend credit based on the credit score, your job and any one of numerous other items that might be applicable to the bank’s lending standards.
So when you hear the aforementioned promises or representations that there is guaranteed credit approval and all you need is a job or some type of pay stub this is quite frankly more likely than not false. Does it make sense that the bank would lend you money when you are not qualified to borrow the money. Absolutely not. Banks have lending standards. They do not lend money to anybody.
On February 7, 2014, President Obama signed the Farm Bill of 2014 into law. Section 7606 of the act defines industrial hemp as distinct and authorizes institutions of higher education or State departments of agriculture in states where hemp is legal to grow hemp for research or agricultural pilot programs.
Source: Vote Hemp: Information: Resources: 2014 Farm Bill – Section 7606
On a somewhat regular basis the Federal Trade Commission also known as the FTC provides a list of information that they have been compiling. Specifically, they provided a list of the top ten consumer complaints according to complaints that they have received from consumers.
As can be seen, debt collection identity thefts are the top two complaints. These are complaints that consumers have complained about to the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission then will take these complaints and make investigations. Sometimes the Federal Trade Commission will then file lawsuits and issue orders and sometimes they do not. The Federal Trade Commission has a website contained therein the numerous investigations complaints which they are taken and pursued under the authority of the federal government. Obviously, debt collectors are one of their top targets. The issues with debt collectors are frequently harassing and deceptive collecting techniques.
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
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).
New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog