Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex A-6307-08T2

The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.

Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
The Superior dismissed the case because the plaintiff was unable to show an ascertainable loss and as such there was no violation of the Consumer Fraud Act shown.

This posting is not intended to demonstrate or imply the dealership did anything wrong or illegal, especially since the case was thrown out. The purpose is to post the majority of the brief that was submitted to the appellate division for the plaintiff requesting that the Appellate division overturn the lower courts decision.


On October 26 and 27, 2004, the plaintiff, Rodney Taylor, attempted to enter into a transaction to purchase a vehicle from the defendant, Cherry Hill Triplex. The plaintiff traveled to the dealership as a result of a misleading advertisement “promising” $8,000 for the plaintiff’s trade. Defendant attempted to sell a vehicle to plaintiff and once they found out plaintiff could not qualify for financing, they convinced him to have his parents sign the contracts. Plaintiff agreed to ask his parents to sign the contracts based on a lie that the deal would be switched to plaintiff’s name after making payments for 8 months.
Defendant also failed to give plaintiff $8,000 for his trade. Instead, the trade ended up costing the plaintiff over $15,000 above the purchase price of the vehicle, which was $16,995. The plaintiff sustained a loss of at least $15,000 after being lured to the dealership with false promises. Defendant was untruthful on the contract and attempted to tell plaintiff that he was actually receiving a $5,600 benefit for his trade, when in reality, they stuck him for over $15,000 added on to the purchase price. Defendant has admitted to increasing the price of the car by over $15,000 to include negative equity and admitted that they did not disclose the negative equity anywhere on the contract. Plaintiff also has made the payments on this vehicle directly to the bank.
The defendant, without any basis, only claims that since the plaintiff did not sign the final purchase agreement the dealership should be free from any obligation under the Consumer Fraud Act. The defendant’s position is not supported by the facts of the case nor the law supporting the basic construction of the Consumer Fraud Act.
Both parties participated in oral argument in front of the Honorable Michele Fox, J.S.C. The issue before the Court was one of standing. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff had no standing to sue because he had suffered no ascertainable loss, which is a prerequisite under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Plaintiff provided undisputed facts showing that Plaintiff had suffered an ascertainable loss; however, Judge Fox dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. It was undisputed that Plaintiff entered Defendant’s dealership to purchase a vehicle. Plaintiff attempted to purchase the vehicle from Defendant. (Pa13 lines 9-11; Pa19). It was undisputed that, while Plaintiff’s parents signed the contracts, Plaintiff made the payments to the bank. There is no dispute as to who made the payments for the vehicle (Pa14, lines 12-16; Pa19).
The plaintiff specifically stated that he sustained an ascertainable loss as a result of making payments on this vehicle and that he sustained an additional ascertainable loss as he never received the $8,000 for his trade-in as was promised by defendant’s advertisement. (Pa19)

Contact Information