Articles Posted in Lemon Law

|

Car Dealer Tricks – Etch Products
It is a common practice for car dealerships in the State of New Jersey to sell a product known as “etch.” Frequently, this product is preprinted on a buyer’s order or a standard form used by the dealership as part of selling a new or used vehicle. Although the dealership might frequently claim that the purchase of this item is optional, it appears as though it is not optional because it is preprinted on a buyer’s order and it is applied to all the vehicles prior to the time of sale. As a practical matter, I have litigated numerous cases where the allegation was that a representative of the dealership explained to the customer that the purchase of this product was mandatory or part of the transaction. Frequently, this is contradicted by written statements contained in the various documentation prepared by the dealership and signed by the consumer, so they feel they are “protected”.
Quite simply, the purchase of etch is neither required nor usually a good idea. The basic concept behind this etch product is that it somehow deters thieves from stealing a car once this particular identification is etched on the windshield. I have yet to see some type of study that etchings on the vehicle reduce the theft rate on the vehicle. Nonetheless, the benefit paid by the etch is not sufficient to support the amount of money or the price of the product. Usually, this product costs consumers from $200 to $500 and must be compared against the deductible of auto insurance. As an example, if you have a deductible with $500 on an auto and the vehicle is stolen or totaled, it is likely that this could be the maximum amount which would be received by the consumer. So, in essence, the consumer is paying $200 to $500 for a $500 benefit. The risk does not justify the price paid for the product. It is not uncommon that the etch product is sold in conjunction with a gap product which must be compared with the policy of automobile insurance sold with the vehicle. Nonetheless, it is overpriced for the risk assumed. Moreover, the requirements to apply for this benefit are overwhelming. There are numerous requirements, including the supplying of police report, notification within 30 days, and documentation from the insurance company, and all sorts of other extras that are required to process this claim.

|

WAIVER OF CONSUMER FRAUD CLAIMS AND CONSUMER FRAUD
The litigation in this case arises out of the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant committed fraud and consumer fraud with regard to the performance of a home improvement contract. See Cox v. Sears, 92 N.J. 1 (1994). The defendant now relies upon arbitration clause and move to have the case dismissed. The arbitration clause provides the following:
Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract at the option of Care Temp may be submitted to binding arbitration with the American Arbitration Association and judgment on award may be entered in any amount entered in any court or company jurisdiction The arbitration clause as written is unenforceable under New Jersey law as promulgated by the New Jersey Supreme Court. In Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, 168 N.J. 124 (2001), the court refused to enforce an arbitration agreement because the arbitration agreement failed to specifically include a waiver of statutory rights. The Supreme Court held that without the specific waiver of statutory rights, the agreement could not be said to encompass those statutory rights in the context of an arbitration clause. In Garfinkel, the court refused to force the plaintiff to arbitrate their statutory law against discrimination claims because the arbitration agreement specifically failed to include a waiver of statutory rights.

|

CAR DEALERSHIP SELLS CAR TO TWO BLIND PEOPLE.

This is not a joke. It is true.

The names will be withheld until suit is filed BUT today I saw, possibly, the worst case in the many years that I have been doing this type of work.

Both of my clients are legally blind, the primary obligor and the cosigner. They do not even have a driver’s license, nor are they permitted to drive. The dealership even got the car registered and insured. The customer was at the dealership with his cane and his glasses. When they told me the story it was hard to believe. They are both legally blind.

To make matters even worse, the car is a mess. It looks like it was in a prior accident with a different hood and various parts are melted on the interior of the car. They were told the car had only one prior owner, when in fact it had two.

The following are the causes of action (theories of liability) against the dealer and/or the lender:

• Consumer Fraud-deceptive conduct. Cox v. Sears.
• Fraud • Breach of contract • Breach of good faith and fair dealings. Wilson v. Hess
• Revocation. Cuesta v. Classic
• Negligence • Discrimination against disabled persons, the blind. Law against discrimination.
• Declaratory relief that the contract is void ab initio (from the beginning)
Continue reading ›

|

There was an article on the NY Times online that contained the following statement:

“At least 30 million cars and light trucks manufactured from 1980 to 1986 are covered by undisclosed warranties for undisclosed defects, the Center for Auto Safety says.”

The article continued

Continue reading ›

|

My Prior post refers to a warranty on extension on Tacomas for rust. Now they have issued a buy back and will pay 150% for all current owners of the Tacoma.

This seems a logical follow-up to their earlier extension of the warranty to 15 years. What will Toyota do if you already scrapped your truck? What about if you are out-of-pocket for repairs?

I guess the real question is: why is this almost 13 years after the truck was first distributed? Is this real costumer service?

Continue reading ›

|

What is going on with the Toyota Tacomas? Rust ?

There appears to be a long history of rust in these vehicles, for which Toyota has been aware. It appears that in March there was an extension of warranty coverage for these trucks for up to 15 years..

Do we think that is a generous olive branch form the manufacturer? Well, let’s take a closer look. It appears that the trucks that were having the problem were manufactured in 1995 to 2000. The “warranty extension” was offered in 2008. I guess Toyota has decided that “better late than never” is a good way to conduct business and keep the customers happy. Let’s say for argument purposes only (I did not know this) that Toyota knew about the problem in 1998, three years after the cars were in production. Well, what’s the problem, why did they wait so long?

Continue reading ›

|

Boating while intoxicated has severe penalties that will affect both your driver’s and boating license, insurance rates and financial situation. If you get pulled over for boating while intoxicated you are required to take a breathalyser but not perform the psychophysical tests. Failure to take the breathalyser will also have serious consequences. Be cooperative and get a lawyer as soon as possible.

Contact Information
788 Shrewsbury Ave
Building 2, #204
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Phone: (732) 709-7277Fax: (732) 879-0213

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design