Articles Posted in Car Dealership Fraud

Guaranteed Credit Approval

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.

Continue reading ›

Who Enforces Consumer Protection Laws? State attorneys general typically enforce state consumer protection laws, often through divisions established to… – The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick LLC – Google+

Source: Who Enforces Consumer Protection Laws? State attorneys general typically enf…

Short Answer about consumer fraud and odometer fraud

What is odometer fraud?      Selling or transferring a car knowing that the odometer is wrong or has been altered

Is odometer fraud consumer fraud?      Selling or transferring a car knowing that the odometer is wrong or has been altered or JUST selling a vehicle with an incorrect odometer reading.

In certain ways odometer fraud is a very simple concept. They are both state and federal laws dealing with odometer fraud. The basic concept is that if a seller of an automobile, or a transferor of an automobile, or where that the odometers and correct or has been tampered with in any way, there is an obligation to disclose same on the odometer disclosure statement. If you disclose same on the odometer disclosure statement that the mileage is improper were not accurately reflected on the vehicle would not have any liability either under the federal or state odometer law.
The federal law on odometer fraud requires the proving of knowledge of the mileage. However, the liability under state law does not require the same level of proof. Obviously, if you prove that an individual sold the vehicle or transferred the vehicle knowing the mileage was incorrect there is a claim for fraud. The basic defense to this claim is that there was disclosure. Naturally fraud claims carry the penalty punitive damages. However, it gets dicey when you are dealing with transferring or selling used motor vehicles where the seller claims ignorance or were unaware of the odometer discrepancy.

Continue reading ›

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


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


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 ›


The rights provided under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act are in addition to any other statutory or common law rights. N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.3 which provides as follows:

The rights, remedies and prohibition accorded by the provisions of this Act are hereby declared to be in addition to and cumulative above any other rights, remedies or prohibition accorded by the common law or statutes of this State, and nothing contained herein shall be construed to deny, abrogate, or impair any such common law or statutory right, redress or prohibition.
The clear intent of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was to provide consumers with additional and cumulative remedies and in no way curtail their remedial opportunities for the redress of fraud and other unconscionable practices afforded by any other statute or common law.  Cybul v. Atrium Palace Syndicate, 272 N.J. Super. 330, 335 (App. Div. 1994).

In Cybul, the Appellate Division held that the plaintiff could maintain a cause of action under an administrative scheme wherein there was no direct provision for a cause of action to the plaintiff. In Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management, 150 N.J. 255 (1997), a watershed case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could maintain a private cause of action in addition to a statutory scheme which provided the plaintiff only a return of premiums paid under the policy. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that: “The CFA simply complements those statutes, allowing for regulation by the Division of Consumer Affairs and a private cause of action to recover damages. The damages cause of action in no way inhibits enforcement of other statutes, because a Court can assess damages in addition to any other penalty to which a defendant is subject.” Continue reading ›


New Jersey law permits claims for fraud to be filed in the civil justice system. However, when pleading fraud the law requires a specificity of pleading. The law requires that the defendant should be put on notice as to what the fraudulent statements for which they are being sued. In a general sense it is best to plead who made the statement, to whom it was made, what the specific statement was and what was relied upon by the person suing. Again, this is in the general sense. However, the defendant should be put on notice as to what is being plead and why they are being sued.

This is known as the heightened pleading requirement. Usually, New Jersey is a notice pleading state. This means that you do not have to specifically state every fact upon which you will base your lawsuit. The facts only have to be stated in a general sense and generally refer to the cause of action. New Jersey has a very liberal pleading requirement with regard to the initial pleadings. This is different than federal court which has a heightened pleading requirement. Nonetheless, if you plead specific facts and legal claims the defendant is required to either admit or deny these claims in their answer. Sometimes, as a matter of strategy, it is better to plead a more specific claim than a general claim. In this fashion you might be able to determine what the nature and extent of the defenses will be.

This rule would apply to all transactions all plaintiffs and all defendants. Remember, it is covered in the New Jersey Court rules and it is a requirement. It is not uncommon that the fraud is not specifically plead and the defendants did not object to the filing of the claim. This could be a matter of strategy also. However, if the defendant does object to the type of pleadings were filed they would file a motion to compel a more specific statement of the fraud. The court would then either dismiss the complaint or permit an amended pleading to be filed with the court. In this way there’s fairness to both the plaintiff and the defendant.

In essence, a completed transaction is not necessarily required to maintain a cause of action under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The defendant’s assertion that there was no “purchase” of goods (not accurate based on the plaintiff’s submissions) is insufficient to support a claim for dismissal on summary judgment.

A completed sale is not required. The definitions section of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act defines a sale as an offer for sale or an attempt directly or indirectly to sell, rent or distribute. Consistent with this, it defines an advertisement as an attempt to directly or indirectly by publication or otherwise… to induce directly or indirectly any person to enter into an obligation. An interpretation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in the definitions sections to exempt offer for sales or advertisement from the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act cannot be deemed consistent with the remedial purposes of the act.

See Miller v. Publishers Clearing House Miller v. Publishers Clearing House 284 N.J.Super. 67 (App.Div 1995) There are specific cases which address the applicability of the consumer fraud act to those who have sold no goods to the plaintiff. See Cogar v. Monmouth Toyota 331 N.J. Super 1997 (App. Div. 2000). See Perth Amboy Iron Works v. American Home Assurance Co. 226 N.J. Super 200, 211 (App. Div. 1988), aff’d, 118 N.J. 249 (1990). In both of these cases, the Appellate Division held the Consumer Fraud Act applicable to individuals and/or businesses who sold no goods to the plaintiff.

Contact Information