Articles Posted in Car Dealership Fraud

|

Guess what? In the car business dealer stake as many liberties with their employees as they do with the customers. There are two basic profit centers: the front end and the back end. The salesmen get paid on the front end only. This is the “cost” of the car, as compared to the selling price. Some people think the cost is the invoice of the car, better known as tissue. The higher level employees get paid on the overall profit of the dealership, which includes all the items considered after market, warranties, etc.

The problem occurs when calculating the cost for calculation of the gross commisionable proceeds for the employees.The dealers add costs to the acquisition price of the car. Some dealers call them “ups.” The dealers increase the cost by the amount of the ups to reduce the commissions.

Usually the pay plans are based on the costs of the products. The dealers take liberties with increasing the cost of the vehicles without disclosing this to the staff, because they exclusively control access to this information.

Continue reading ›

|

Affirmative misrepresentations are actionable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. See, Cox v. Sears, 92 N.J. Super 1, (1994). In order for an affirmative misrepresentation to be actionable under the New Jersey Consumer Act, it must be 1) material to the transaction; 2) fact; and 3) false. See Gennari v. Weichert Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 607 (1993); Vaccarello v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 2000 W.L. 76404 (App. Div. 2000); Ji v. Palmer, 33 N.J. Super. 451 (App. Div 2000)

A statement is material if: a) a reasonable person would attach importance to its existence in determining a choice of action; b) the maker of the representation knows or has reason to know that if its recipient regards or is likely to regard the matter as important in determining his choice of action although a reasonable man would not so regard it. See Ji v. Palmer, supra.

In Ji, the Appellate Division held that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff’s Complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case. The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff properly set forth a prima facie case and, as such, the trial court was mistaken and the case should be reinstated. In Ji, the plaintiff purchased commercial real estate and alleged that the defendant made an affirmative misrepresentation at closing that the Certificate of Occupancy satisfied the City’s requirement that a Certificate of Land Use be obtained upon transfer of title. The trial court, improperly, dismissed the plaintiff’s case because the plaintiff could not show that the misstatement was made knowingly. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the plaintiffs were not required to show the defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of his statement or an intent to deceive. The plaintiff sufficiently proved that the defendant made a material misrepresentation of fact, which was false. The Court held: The Consumer Fraud Act is intended to protect consumers from deception and fraud, even when committed in good faith. An intent to deceive is not a prerequisite for the imposition of liability.

Continue reading ›

|

It’s never-ending. How many of these stories do we see on a daily basis on the internet and read in the newspapers? Charged with fraud: his name is Vahid Sedaghat, 52, and the criminal complaint was filed in Ramsey Country District Court. Please remember: innocent until proven guilty.

|

TECHNOLOGY

Reasonably priced technology assures that dealers are aware of any damage to a car that they sell. An Elcometer. This device measures the thickness of the paint on the car. There are manufacturer standards for paint thickness. There are standards for consistency on a car. This device can absolutely warn a dealer if a car was repainted. This raises a red flag that the dealer must take a closer look at the car. They will then see other evidence that the car was wrecked, such as frame repair, over spray or bondo on the car. This is all obvious to anyone with any automotive experience, especially a dealer selling cars for a living. There are also frame machines that can measure even slight imbalances in the frame. These are a reasonably-priced option for the dealers selling cars to the public. Don’t you think they should take the steps necessary to assure the cars that they both buy and sell are safe for the public’s use? Does it seem to be asking very much? Not really.

|

The answer is simple: YES, YES, YES.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSRTY STANDARDS

Dealers are required to inspect the cars before they sell them to the public. Industry standards mandate this result. They are in the best position and have the expertise to make these safety inspections. This aside, common sense mandates this result. Why would a dealer want to open himself to liability for selling a dangerous car when they had the chance to assure the car was safe? At a minimum they do not want a pissed-off customer with many mechanical complaints. Bad for business. Might cost the dealer money in repairs. Might get sued.

Also, the dealer has a process for acquiring cars from auctions, on trades and by wholesale to assure that the cars are not damaged. Most of the auctions have special designations for damaged cars. Green light means no problem while cars sold under the yellow and red light have problems, mechanical or otherwise. Manheim Auto Auction is the main source of cars for these dealerships and they have a detailed system of disclosure. Manheim actually offers an inspection service for those buying and selling cars at the auction to assure an open and honest marketplace.
Continue reading ›

|

According to the ledger.com John Giovanetti, former owner of Big Oaks Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., located at Bartow, Florida, was found guilty by a federal jury of wire fraud and bank fraud. According to this story, Mr. Giovanetti was using advances from his credit line to run the dealership rather than acquire vehicles for sale. It was asserted that there were fraudulent documents which were submitted to the finance company, SunTrust, listing vehicles that had already been sold by Big Oaks. The indictments specifically read “that the money obtained from the bank was used to finance their daily operations and support of the owner’s lifestyle.” This just demonstrates that not only do the customers need to be careful but the bank’s lenders as well. Be careful, be very careful.
Continue reading ›

|

Millions of new and used cars are sold every year in this country. It is well-known within the industry that many of the used cars are damaged, ranging form minor body damage to serious frame damage.

Many dealers sell these cars and make a handsome profit. The first issue is: what is the dealer’s liability if they sell these cars?

There are many areas of law that address this liability: Consumer Fraud, Fraud, Breach of Warranty, Lemon Law (New and Used)

FRAUD
The basic premise of fraud is that if the dealer knows about the damage and they think that disclosing the information would make a difference in the consumer’s purchasing decision they must make the disclosure, whether or not they are asked by the purchaser. There is also liability for reckless disregard, meaning if they intentionally disregard the risk and stick their heads in the sand to avoid learning that the car was damaged, there is liability.

CONSUMER FRAUD
The analysis is more complex but, for the sake of brevity, if the dealer knew or should have known and failed to disclose this information there is liability under the Consumer Fraud Act. Intent must be proven under this situation.
The dealer can also be sued if the they misrepresented that the car was not in an accident when it actually was, even if they did not know. This is called an affirmative misrepresentation of fact. The dealer as a seller of merchandise is obligated to assure that their representations pertaining to their goods must be accurate.
Continue reading ›

|

The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act should be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purpose. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was passed in 1960 to permit the Attorney General to combat the increasingly widespread practice of defrauding the consumer. Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 14 (1994) (quoting Senate Committee, Statement to the Senate Bill No. 199 [1960].) The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, states:
“Any act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression or omission, of material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression, or omission in conjunction with the sale . . . or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has, in fact, been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice.”

The Consumer Fraud Act was initially designed to combat sharp practices and dealings that victimize consumers by luring them into purchases through fraudulent or deceptive means. Id. at 16. See also Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management, 289 N.J. Super. 489, 495 (App. Div. 1995). In 1971, it was specifically amended to include a private cause of action with treble damages, giving New Jersey one of the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation. Cox at 15, Lemelledo at 495. Quoting Governor’s Press Release for Assembly Bill No. 2402, at 1 (April 19, 1971): “The Consumer Fraud Act is no longer aimed solely at shifty, fast-talking and deceptive merchants, but reaches non-soliciting artisans as well.” Thus, the Act is designed to protect the public, even when a merchant acts in good faith. Cox at 16.

Both the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Legislature have declared that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act is a remedial statute and, as such, should be construed liberally in favor of consumers. Cox at 16. The Legislative history supports this conclusion, evidenced by two significant Amendments to the Act. In 1962, the Act was amended to include a cause of action for “deceptive practices”. Also, in 1975, the Legislature amended the Act to include unlawful practices in the sale and advertisement of real estate. An analysis of relevant New Jersey law supports the proposition that the Consumer Fraud Act should be liberally in an expansive fashion to protect the consumer for potentially deceptive conduct.
Continue reading ›

|

The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act is one of the strongest Consumer statutes in the country. It provides for mandatory triple damages and attorney fees if you are successful. The posts in this category are primarily for lawyers or those writing briefs on the Act. I will include both basic and more advanced points of law. Good luck.

The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick is a law firm located in Red Bank/Middletown New Jersey and has extensive experience in litigating against car dealerships and other defendants using the Consumer Fraud Act.

|

The Honorable Mark Sullivan J.S.C. found that Acura of Ocean committed consumer fraud when they failed to accurately disclose damage on the lease of a new car.

The client leased a new car from Acura of Ocean and was told that there was a paint chip that had been repaired. The truth was that the vehicle had been vandalized and there was much more damage to the car, none of which was disclosed.

The Judge tripled the damages under the Consumer Fraud Act and provided for an award of counsel fees as required under the law.
Continue reading ›

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