Articles Posted in Auto Fraud

This is not a complete defense to fraud or consumer fraud

Even if the dealer would have sold the car as is, this is not a defense to fraud or consumer fraud.

Richie and Pat Bonvie Stables, Inc. v. Irving 350 N.J.Super. 579 (App.Div 2002)

The dealer’s position that their ‘disclaimer’ protects them from any affirmative misrepresentations they made is clearly without merit and without support under the law.

The standard is whether or not the disclosures made to the plaintiff had the capacity to mislead. The dealership states that the vehicle has not been in an accident then they give disclaimers that they are not sure whether the vehicle has been in accident.

Clearly, these are contradictory disclosures and have the capacity to mislead the plaintiff and in fact did mislead the plaintiff. The defense claims that the plaintiff cannot justifiably rely upon the statements as to the fact as to whether or not there was an accident is not supported by law.

The issue of approximate cost and/or reliance is one for a trier of fact to determine rather than to determine on a motion.
Continue reading ›

• Failure to disclose that the car had sustained damage in an accident. Totz v. Continental DuPage Acura, 602 N.E.2d 1374 (Ill.App.Ct 1992)

• Failure to disclose engine damage. Slaney v. Westwood Auto, 322 N.E.2d 768 (Mass. 1975).

• Failure to disclose defective brakes. Mahan Volkswagon v. Hall, 648 S.W.2d 324 (Tex.Civ.App. 1982)

• Failure to disclose that a new car had been damaged in transit and repaired. Pirozzi v. Pesnke Olds Cadillac, 605 A.2d. 373 (PA. Super. Ct. 1992).

• Failure to disclose that the vehicle had been used as a racing vehicle. Testo v. Russ Dunmeyer Olds, 554 P.2d. 349 (Wash. 1976).

• Failure to disclose MSRP. Ciampi v. Ogden Chrysler Plymouth, 634 N.E. 448 (Ill.App. 1994).
• Failure to disclose that the odometer was inaccurate. The Court held that intent could be inferred if the seller reasonably should have known that the mileage was inaccurate. Seller had exclusive control during period of alleged rollback. Huycke v. Greenway, 876 F.2d 94 (11th Cir. 1989).

• Failure to disclose mileage properly under circumstances that required the dealer to know about the discrepancy. Nieto v. Pence, 578 F.2d. 640 (5th.Cir. 1978).

• Statements made recklessly or carelessly without any reasonable ground for a belief in truth as to the mileage constitutes intent to defraud. Jones v. Fenton Ford, 427 F.Supp 1328 (D.Conn. 1977).
Continue reading ›

What do you do when the dealer refuses to sell you the car at the advertised price?

Can you sue? YES

PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE THE RANGE ROVER FALLS WITHIN THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

CARTON AND RUDNICK 788 SHREWSBURY AVENUE BUILDING 2, SUITE 204 TINTON FALLS, N.J. 07724 732-842-2070 FAX: 732-879-0213
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS.
OUR FILE NO.:

Paul Plaintiff,

Plaintiff,

Vs.
JOHN DOES 1-100,

Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION BERGEN COUNTY

DOCKET No.

CIVIL ACTION
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

The plaintiff, Paul Plaintiff, by way of complaint against the defendants, states the following:
COUNT I 1. On or about June 2012, the plaintiff acquired the subject automobile from the defendant, John Doe. The Vehicle Identification Number is XXXXXXXX. As part of the transaction, the defendant dealership affirmatively misrepresented the condition of the vehicle, intentionally and willfully to the detriment of the plaintiff upon which the plaintiff relied causing the plaintiff damages. The defendant dealership knew or should have known that the vehicle was previously involved in an accident and/or sustained serious damage through a flood damage confirmed by XXXXXXX Infinity.
2. After the plaintiff purchased the car, he took the vehicle to an authorized Infiniti dealership, XXXXXXXX, and they provided the plaintiff with the service history which indicated the vehicle was previously in a flood. The defendant, XXXXXX, claimed they had no knowledge of the prior damage of the vehicle.
3. It is believed that the defendant, Infiniti of XXXXXXX, made affirmative misrepresentations of fact and/or material omissions of fact pertaining to the prior damage on the vehicle. An authorized Infiniti dealer had access to the service history and were clearly aware of the flood damage when they sold it at auction. They failed to make appropriate disclosures at auction and committed fraud and consumer fraud with regard to the plaintiff.
4. No privity of contract is required for a consumer fraud claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act between the plaintiff and the defendant, Infiniti of XXXXXXX. They subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of New Jersey on a general basis. The defendant, Infiniti of XXXXXXX, has sufficient expectations being named as a defendant in lawsuits in New Jersey.
5. Moreover, the auction which was run by the manufacturer, XXXXXX of North America, also had an obligation to make appropriate disclosures to a seller of the subject vehicle. And/or they had a responsibility to make sure that the selling dealer made appropriate disclosures to the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff has sustained an ascertainable loss together with interest and costs of the suit.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest and costs of the suit together with punitive damages.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by a jury of six (6) jurors as to all issues raised in these pleadings.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4:25-4, the Court is advised that JONATHAN RUDNICK, ESQ., is hereby designated trial counsel.

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that, pursuant to R. 4:5-1(b)(2), this matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any Court or of a pending arbitration, nor is any action or arbitration proceeding contemplated.

CARTON & RUDNICK Attorneys for Plaintiff

BY:__________________________________ JONATHAN RUDNICK, ESQ.

Dated: November 20, 2012 Continue reading ›