Consumer Lawyer

Toyota Recall

January 24, 2010 | Jonathan Rudnick

On January 21, 2010 Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. issued a press release indicating there would be a recall of approximately 2.3 million vehicles to fix/correct a sticking accelerator in various specific Toyota Division models.

This press release stated that this action was distinct from an ongoing recall of approximately 4.2 million vehicles, Toyota and Lexus, to reduce the risks of pedal entrapment.

The press release indicates that Toyota had been investigating isolated reports over a lengthy period of time to determine if there was a risk under certain circumstances of danger to the drivers and the public with regard to this pedal condition. This is according to the Toyota website.

Toyota Recall and Sudden Acceleration

January 17, 2010 | Jonathan Rudnick

This is scary stiff, taken from a NHTSA report: Be carefull

Driving home from work, I experienced a sudden uncontrollable surge in acceleration causing my speed to increase from about 60 mph to 80+ mph.

Immediately I began to brake hard as I was rapidly approaching traffic just ahead of me. Fortunately the inside left lane was unoccupied and I was able to make an immediate lane change. Initially I depressed the brake pedal as hard as I could using both feet but only managed to slow the vehicle to 40-45 mph. With my speed reduced, I alternated between pumping the accelerator pedal and pulling up on it from the underside with my right foot as it became clear that the throttle was stuck in an open position. The vehicle continued to speed back up to over 65 mph with less pressure on the brake pedal.

REPOSSESSIONS AND CHARGE OFFS ARE INCREASED

December 30, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

This news story indicates that repossessions and charge offs are way up:

REPOSSESSIONS AND CONSUMER FRAUD

December 28, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

There are very high-tech methods to grab your car. Check out this video. They will find your car!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL5_-Qtlx2M

More repo man:

CONSUMER FRAUD CLAIMS AND MOVING COMPANIES

December 23, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

It is not uncommon that people make claims that a moving company has committed fraud or consumer fraud. These claims are usually in the context of improper or inaccurate estimates, improper or inappropriate moving practices, and improper or inappropriate billing practices.

As an example, one person might claim that they were quoted one price and were required to pay a different price upon delivery of their goods. There are specific Administrative Code sections applicable to moving companies in the State of New Jersey. However, these regulations would not be deemed the only avenue of potential standards against a moving company. The generalized New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and deceptive and inappropriate conduct contained under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud would also be applicable to moving companies. As an example, if a moving company were to make an affirmative misrepresentation of fact as to a specific quote and then were to hold goods for ransom if additional monies were not paid, this could potentially be deemed a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, inappropriate conduct and actionable conduct under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. What the ascertainable loss is, which is a requirement under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, would be an entirely different question.

Thus, when engaging a moving company, make sure that you get all representations in writing and also representations that this is a final and full quote. Many people have contacted my office while the moving companies are in possession of their goods and refusing to deliver the goods unless the consumer signs some additional documentation which indicates that additional charges are appropriate, additional card credit charges authorization are appropriate or a complete release from all liability is signed. Unless the moving company gets this documentation, generally they will not deliver the goods. This places the consumer in a very awkward and uncomfortable position, dealing with a moving company that is in possession of their entire inventory of household goods.

NEW JERSEY REPOSSESSION LAWYER

December 17, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

REPOSSESSION, CAUSES OF ACTION

Under New Jersey law, a company who is repossessing a consumer vehicle has an obligation to comply with all applicable laws. This means that if a repossession company breaches the peace in the context of repossession, the individual who has been aggrieved by this act would have a claim against both the repossession company and the finance company who hired this repossession company. The duty to make sure that there is no breach of the peace is a non-delegable duty. This means that the finance company who has owed the money is ultimately responsible for the actions of the repossession company to make sure that all of the laws are complied within the context of repossession.

Ultimately, the repossession company usually carries an extensive insurance company to cover any conduct with regard to improper repossession. Therefore, if the repossession company, the marketing company and/or the finance company are sued in the context of an improper or wrongful repossession, it is ultimately the insurance company from the repossession company who will be responsible for any and all losses. Many times there are agreements between the repossession company and the finance company with regard to repossession. This means the repossession company has agreed to be responsible, in writing, for any damages associated with the wrongful or inappropriate repossession of a vehicle. This is the way the finance companies protect themselves, with the signed agreement, with the repossession company to make sure that there is insurance coverage to cover the finance company. As an example, if a repossession company were to get into a fight with the owner of the vehicle, break into the owner’s house or conduct other illegal or inappropriate actions, the finance company could ultimately be responsible for any damages in this case since the duty is a non-delegable duty with regard to the repossession. There is also frequently an intermediary company which is hired by the finance company to farm out the repossession to another party. Therefore, when investigating these claims, there are frequently additional parties which are not disclosed at the time of the repossession.

DECEPTION AND THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT – PART II

December 11, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

Thus, if a seller of an automobile says that the vehicle has not been in an accident, when in fact it has been in an accident, that is an affirmative misrepresentation of fact which is false and inherently has the capacity to mislead a potential purchaser of the vehicle. This should be an actionable representation contemplated under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, for which the plaintiff would be entitled to damages if a case was proved. There are other ways to prove a consumer fraud under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act where good faith might be a defense. As an example, if a plaintiff is claiming a material omission of fact, the plaintiff would be required to prove intent to pursue a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. However, when the plaintiff is alleging an affirmative misrepresentation of fact, good faith is not a defense. As an example, if a dealer were to state that a vehicle was not in an accident and in fact was in an accident, even though they were relying upon a CARFAX or other industry accepted databases or documentation, they would not have a valid defense under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

As an example, there is a case under New Jersey law called Cuesta v. Classic Car. In this specific case, the seller of an automobile sold a vehicle with an inappropriate or improper odometer reading. The Court held that the improper odometer reading created a ‘misrepresentation of fact’ which was actionable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The dealer claimed they were unaware of this rollback; however, this is not deemed a valid defense. This is consistent with the liberal interpretation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the decision by the legislature to place the burden on a business to make sure that the product that they sell is in fact consistent with any representations set forth by the selling dealership or business.

A consumer should be able to rely upon the representations from the business since they are the experts in the field in which the consumer is dealing. It is an entirely separate post to quantify the amount of loss where the appropriate procedure or guidelines for pursuing a claim for consumer fraud under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. However, this post just demonstrates types of claims which can be sued and the obligations upon a business when selling a vehicle product or other consumer goods.

DECEPTION AND THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT – PART 1

December 1, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

DECEPTION AND THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

The New Jersey Courts have determined and held that the defendant’s acts of good faith are not necessarily a defense to a consumer fraud action. The Courts have held, as set forth in the Model Jury Civil Charges, that it is the capacity to mislead that is the important aspect of consumer fraud. What exactly is the capacity to mislead in the context of a consumer transaction?

The business, who sells a product, including a car, is charged with the knowledge of all the associated Administrative Code Regulations. The seller of an automobile or a product is assumed to be knowledgeable in the industry in which they sell a specific product such as a vehicle. Thus, the seller of a product or a vehicle in making certain representations pertaining to that product have a duty/obligation to make sure that those representations and warranties with the product are accurate, complete and not misleading in any way. As previously set forth, it is the capacity to mislead that is important in a consumer fraud claim. Thus, the defendant in a defense to a consumer fraud claim cannot say we did not know, we were not sure or we did the best we could. Again, good faith is not a defense to certain claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The seller of a product is better suited than the purchaser of a product to assure that the representations pertaining to the product are in fact accurate and thus the consumer is not misled.

Buying a car and consumer fraud, part 2

November 18, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

Many processes are used, such as keeping people at the dealership for a long period of time, separating couples, confusing customers with various documentation and keeping them in the air. There are many, many dealership terms that characterized the types of process that are undertaken. If one were to think that negotiating a purchase of the car is simply speaking about the price and then getting the financing approved, they are mistaken. The dealership has various devices to ‘squeeze you’ for additional money and time. All of the squeezing that the dealership does ultimately breaks down your defenses and I have had many clients who have said I was there for so long, I just signed whatever documents that they put in front of me. This is exactly what a dealership is trying to do.
Therefore, if you are buying a vehicle, it is important that you go there when you are well-rested and take an aggressive attitude with the dealership and understand that nothing that they say can be trusted. If you take this approach and get aggressive with them and start asking questions of them to see what price they want and what financing they want and what interest rate they can provide, they will be on the defensive. Ultimately, the dealership knows that you can walk out of the dealership, go to another dealership across the street or down the road and get a better deal and cost them a sale. Dealerships count on a certain percentage of all people entering the dealership to purchase vehicles. This is a known statistic by the dealerships.

Buying a Car and Consumer Fraud, part 1

November 13, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

Buying a Car and Consumer Fraud

Many consumers confide that buying a vehicle is one of the worst experiences of their life. Frequently, they come into my office and they are embarrassed and ashamed of the situation in which they have found themselves.

When one understands how a car dealership sells cars, there is a complete understanding of the circumstances leading to a vehicle purchased and there should be no reason to be embarrassed. Quite frankly, people do not understand the extensive processes at work when buying a car. Actually, the appropriate statement would be most people do not understand the processes at work used by a dealership to force the sale of vehicles. This process has been honed for many years, for which the dealership employees at all levels have been trained. All levels of dealership employees, including salesmen, sales managers, finance and insurance managers, general managers and other owner representatives have been extensively trained in the process of selling cars.