Articles Posted in Lemon Law

|

Consumer fraud trials can be complicated, LONG and a challenge. There are Rules of Court that must be followed, rules of evidence and Model Jury Instructions. A trial has very little to do with everyday common sense. There are strict rules to address what arguments can be made, what facts can be presented to the judge and jury and burdens of proof and persuasion. It takes years of in court experience to understand a trial, especially a Consumer For a Trial.

A Consumer Fraud Trial has a large amount of very technical requirements/proof/burdens. As in most cases, the plaintiff has the burden. However in some areas of a Consumer Trial the burden is lowered because of the practical considerations the legislature has determined are necessary for the enforcement of the consumer fraud act.

A good example is Proximate Cause. In most lawsuits, and in most causes of action there is a requirement for proximate cause. Proximate cause requires that the actions of the defendant caused the damage to the plaintiff or the victim. There are specific jury instructions that address this issue. However, in Consumer Fraud Trials the standard/burden has been lowered by the New Jersey courts.

Continue reading ›

|

New Jersey Lemon Law Update January 2020

There have been no statutory amendments modifications or other significant changes and the New Jersey Lemon Law. The update is that there is no update. I just recently updated my New Jersey Lemon Law page at my website.

There is a used New Jersey lemon and there is a new New Jersey Lemon Law. The remedies are different for those claiming they have purchased a lemon. However, the underlying concept is that the use/value/safety of the vehicle you were driving has been substantially impaired. Each statutory provision, used car lemon law and a new car lemon law, spells out the remedies to which you are entitled. The New Jersey new car lemon law provides for a repurchase formula with attorney’s fees and costs.

Continue reading ›

|

A year ago last February, the FDA sent out the first of numerous warning letters to 18 companies marketing cannabidiol (CBD) products, regarding claims they were making about their products, in the hopes of protecting an unwitting and unknowing public, many naive to what CBD actually is. The letters that the companies received allege that […]

Source: FDA Fails to Call Attention to Consumer Fraud in CBD Hemp Market | Cannabis Now

|

Does New Jersey have a Lemon Law? Yes there is a new and used car lemon law that can be filed in Superior Court or in Administrative Court … – The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick LLC – Google+

Source: Does New Jersey have a Lemon Law? Yes there is a new and used car lemon law …

|

hong kong

Sales people lawsuits

I authored a similar post on this issue in May of 2009. Please click here to review that post.

One area of litigation drive addressed in my ears as an attorney is the area of salespeople suing the dealership for improperly calculating wages.
The starting point in this analysis is the pay plan. Then once the pay plan is looked at closely one must examine the method by which the pay is calculated to see if this method of calculation is consistent or inconsistent with the pay plan.

Very poorly worded pay plans can lead to significant litigation results against the dealership principle or the Corporation. As an example if it fails to properly define profit or properly define cost or to find any other term which is involved in the calculating of the commission. In New Jersey any ambiguity in the wording is construed against the drafter of the agreement meaning the selling dealership. Thus, employees make an argument of that profit includes other items which might be ambiguous based on a reviewing of the pay plan. The same might be true for costs. Whether or not a cost to be assessed to a vehicle might be ambiguous based on the pay plan.

Continue reading ›

|

DAMAGED CARS flag - Copy

The plaintiff, residing in Edison, New Jersey, says by way of complaint against the defendants as follows:
COUNT I
1. On or about September 28, 2013, the defendant, Auto Group, of East Brunswick, was a corporation licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey.
2. On or about that date, the defendant, MANUFACTURER, was also a corporation licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey.
3. On or about that date, the plaintiff acquired a used 2011 Acura MDX black, with 30,711 miles.
4. The vehicle was represented as a certified pre-owned vehicle and of higher quality than other certified pre-owned vehicles.
5. It was also specifically represented that the vehicle was not involved in any prior automobile accidents. The literature indicating that the vehicle was of higher quality and not in a prior automobile accident were both from the manufacturer and/or the selling dealer indicating that the vehicle was of higher quality than other used vehicles. The selling dealer specifically stated that the vehicle had not been in a prior automobile accident.
6. The plaintiff signed various documents including a retail installment sales contract and a buyer’s order to acquire the vehicle which the purchase price was $30,500.
7. As part of the transaction, the defendant dealership and/or the manufacturer issued a certified pre-owned warranty which the plaintiff paid a dollar amount for which is not disclosed in the appropriate paperwork. Continue reading ›

|

VW

It is now apparent that Volkswagen appears to have significant legal troubles. Internet and news reports indicate the state of New Jersey has sued Volkswagen for selling vehicles with the inappropriate engines. It appears  the state of New Jersey has put a bid out the law firms to represent the state in pursuing Volkswagen to recoup various costs, presumably environmental costs. New Jersey is not the only state to have filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen as numerous other states have done the same thing. In addition, class actions have been filed against Volkswagen and have been designated multi district litigation or MDL. What this means is that all the Volkswagen lawsuits from around the country, each and every case, will be transferred, consolidated into this one federal court action which appears to be pending in California.

Volkswagen has admitted equipping cars with software that let them cheat on diesel emissions tests in the U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is suing the company in federal court over what it says were 600,000 such vehicles.

So not only does Volkswagen have the various lawsuits from the very states but they have been subject to numerous class actions which have been consolidated. It appears as though the only question is going to be when Volkswagen can no longer stand the pressure. One must assume that the financial pressure on Volkswagen is significant in light of the investigation and the lawsuits  from the states and the amount of money that they are potentially seeking in compensation for the alleged and admitted corporate fraud. Pursuant to the link attached hereto, Volkswagen has admitted the corporate fraud and is working with the very states including California to repair the vehicles or make sure that the vehicles comply with the various states law including California’s law on omissions. Continue reading ›

|

worst jeep

According to this post from carcomplaints.com there is a ranking of the worst Jeep Grand Cherokee model years based on consumer complaints. It appears as though the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee was the model year with the most complaints the Jeeps. This specific graph containing information on the jeeps does not indicate what the problems were, where the problems were for the ultimate resolution. However, you can do some online research to determine the nature and extent of the various problems associated with the Jeep Grand Cherokee’s, various model years.

Obviously, the individual user experience will be different for each vehicle. This does not mean that you should completely overlook an excessive amount of imported complaints with regard to a specific vehicle. CarComplaints.com appears to be an excellent resource to research complaints on various vehicles. To go to their webpage look at the reports complaints for the vehicles. If you are doing research on purchasing either a new or used vehicle it cannot hurt to research the vehicle on this page. Then you can see if there were a lot of complaints, and model of the and/or the specific complaints that were made against a specific model year. It appears to be an excellent, free resource. They should be able one part of the court purchasing process.

If you have a vehicle with many complaints whether it be a new vehicle or a used vehicle, you might have a vehicle which might warrant a refund or some sort of compensatory damages. For new vehicles would pursue a claim under the lemon law. For a new vehicle you would pursue a claim under the used lemon law for a simple breach of warranty claim. In New Jersey the used car lemon law is not very effective and is extremely limited. Consumers have their rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. With new vehicles have a significant amount of additional rights due to the overlay of the New Jersey Lemon Law.

|

Vehicles Branded Under The New Jersey Lemon Law
As of June 1, 2014

If a motor vehicle is returned to the manufacturer under the provisions of the New Jersey Lemon Law or similar statute of another state or as a
result of a legal action or an informal dispute settlement procedure, it shall not be resold or re-leased in New Jersey unless the manufacturer has
the vehicle’s title stamped “R – RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER UNDER LEMON LAW OR OTHER PROCEEDING.” A copy of the
stamped title shall be submitted to the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) to be permanently branded as a Lemon (Status “L” on your
NJ title).

The list below is compiled from information received by the New Jersey Lemon Law Unit and, as of November 2008, from the New Jersey
Motor Vehicle Commission. It should not be considered a complete list of all vehicles repurchased under the New Jersey Lemon Law or similar
laws of other states. The vehicles being reported on this website are up to 12 model years old. The Division of Consumer Affairs makes no
representation regarding the condition of any particular vehicle.

YEAR MAKE MODEL VIN 2003 ACURA MDX 2HNYD18213H553107 2004 ACURA TL 19UUA65504A015377 2004 ACURA TL 19UUA662X4A018081 2005 ACURA RL JH4KB16575C019760 2006 ACURA TL 19UUA662X6A032792 2006 ACURA TSX JH4CL96856C008588 2007 ACURA MDX 2HNYD28417H525109 2007 ACURA MDX SPORT 2HNYD28807H545208 2007 ACURA RL JH4KB16557C001308 2008 ACURA MDX 2HNYD28848H518644 2008 ACURA RDX 5J8TB18258A008573 2008 ACURA RDX 5J8TB18288A013492 2008 ACURA RDX TECHNOLOGY 5J8TB185X8A014346 2008 ACURA RDX TECHNOLOGY 5J8TB18528A015572 2008 ACURA TL 19UUA662X8A054603 2008 ACURA TL 19UUA75688A044887 2008 ACURA TL 19UUA66288A052655 2008 ACURA TL 19UUA66278A049813 2008 ACURA TL 19UUA66288A039176 2009 ACURA MDX TECH 2HNYD286X9H512248 2009 ACURA TL 19UUA96539A006390 2009 ACURA TL 19UUA86289A025842 2010 ACURA MDX ADVANCE 2HNYD2H7XAH503529 2010 ACURA TL 19UUA9E59AA000700 2010 ACURA TL 19UUA9E53AA004287 2010 ACURA TL 19UUA8F51AA008718 2010 ACURA TSX JH4CU2F6XAC008470 2010 ACURA TSX JH4CU2F69AC004099 2011 ACURA TL 19UUA8F56BA002950 2012 ACURA TL 19UUA9F23CA009030 2012 ACURA TSX JH4CU2F63CC007311 2013 ACURA ILX 19VDE2E55DE000357 2013 ACURA MDX 2HNYD2H44DH501219 2014 ACURA MDX 5FRYD4H45EB023903 2008 ASTON MARTIN DB9 VOLANTE SCFAB02A88GB09785 2003 AUDI A4 CABRIOLET WAUAT48H93K008391 2003 AUDI ALLROAD WA1YD64B23N058506 2004 AUDI A4 WAUVC68E74A176329 2004 AUDI S4 WAUPL68E44A134175 Continue reading ›

|

Bait and Switch

New Jersey does have laws that stop bait and switch practices by automobile dealers. An example would be to lure you into the dealer and then switch you from the advertised car. I have seen sales where the car that was advertised and was already sold by the time the customer went to he dealership then they switched the customer into another cat, or the advertised car was damages or never shown tot he potential customer.

Keep any advertisements and keep notes on when and where you saw the car on the internet so you can insist on the car that was advertised.. The real issue is what do you do and can you sue of they do not sell you the car that was advertised.

Lets look at this set of facts:

Car advertised on the dealer site for $20,000
Customer get to dealer and the price on the car is $50,000
Dealer refuses to sell the car.

Do you sue and if so what are the damages?

CARTON AND RUDNICK LLC
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