New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog
OPENING STATEMENT
May it please the Court,
This case is about deception, trust, and accountability. My client Mr Smith walked into The defendant dealership to purchase a new vehicle—one free from defects, prior accidents, and hidden damage. The dealership’s salesman assured my client—without hesitation—that the car was exactly that: new, accident-free, and in pristine condition. Relying on that representation, my client paid top dollar for what they believed was a vehicle in flawless condition.
But that was a lie.
We know that this so-called “new” vehicle had sustained significant damage—over $10,000 worth—before it was sold to my client. Prior insurance records confirm that this vehicle was the subject of multiple insurance claims and had suffered substantial repairs.
Let’s be clear: A new car should never have this type of damage. A consumer purchasing a new vehicle has every right to expect that it has never been in an accident, never sustained major repairs, and is truly in the condition that the dealership claims. Instead, my client was misled into purchasing a car that was far from what was promised.
The Law & The Dealership’s Fraudulent Conduct Under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, NJSA 56:8-2 it is unlawful for businesses to engage in:
• Deceptive acts or practices in connection with the sale of merchandise
• Misrepresentation or omission of material facts
• Conduct that creates the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding
The law imposes strict liability, meaning the dealership does not need to have acted intentionally for their conduct to be unlawful. Whether they knowingly deceived my client or failed to disclose the prior accident history, their actions violate the law.
The omission of the prior accident history was material—meaning it was information that would have directly affected my client’s decision to purchase the vehicle. Had my client known the truth, they would never have paid full price for a car that had been previously damaged.
The Breach of Trust—The Dealership’s Refusal to Make It Right
Once my client discovered the truth, they immediately returned to the dealership, expecting them to take responsibility for their deception. My client asked the dealership to buy the car back, to correct their fraud, and to make things right.
But the dealership flatly refused. Instead of fixing their wrongdoing, they doubled down on their deception, leaving my client with a car that was worth far less than what they paid.
This refusal was not just unfair—it was intentional. It was a deliberate choice to continue the fraud rather than take responsibility. And that is why we are not just asking for the value of the car to be refunded—we are also seeking punitive damages.
The Harm
Because of the dealership’s deception and refusal to take responsibility, my client suffered significant financial damage. They paid a premium price for what they were led to believe was a brand-new, undamaged vehicle—but instead received a car with a hidden accident history that substantially reduced its value.
This is not just a case of bad business practices, this is fraud. It is a clear violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.
Why We Are Seeking Punitive Damages
This case is not just about making my client whole—it’s about deterring businesses from engaging in these types of deceptive practices. That is why the Consumer Fraud Act allows for punitive damages—to hold wrongdoers accountable and send a message that fraudulent conduct in the marketplace will not be tolerated.
The dealership had a chance to correct their fraud. They refused. They made a conscious decision to put their profits over honesty, their bottom line over consumer protection. That type of misconduct deserves more than just a refund deserves real consequences.
Evidence Will Show
At the conclusion of this trial, the evidence will show that the defendant knowingly misrepresented the vehicle’s history. We will prove:
1. The dealership either knew or should have known about the vehicle’s accident history.
2. The salesman affirmatively represented that the vehicle was accident-free and in new condition.
3. My client relied on this false representation when deciding to purchase the vehicle.
4. A new car should never have sustained this kind of damage, yet the dealership sold it anyway.
5. When my client discovered the fraud, they returned to the dealership in good faith, only to be refused.
6. As a result, my client suffered financial harm and is entitled to relief under the Consumer Fraud Act, including compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages.
For these reasons, we will ask that you hold the dealership accountable—not just by compensating my client for their losses, but by awarding punitive damages to ensure that this kind of fraud does not happen to another consumer.
Thank you.