New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog
‘Fake’ Sales Trick Customers at Major Stores, Study Says – NBC News
A consumer group says some well-known stores seem to have perpetual sales on certain items, so the “discounted” price is really the regular price.
Source: ‘Fake’ Sales Trick Customers at Major Stores, Study Says – NBC News
The 10 Most Common Consumer Complaints – ABC News
We all have had bad experiences with companies before — a bank that charged you a fee in error, a package that never arrived, a mechanic who doesn’t seem to be charging you a fair price for your repairs.
A written summation in an arbitration where the dealer sold a car with damage and failed to disclose the damage to the consumer
FACTS – SUMMATION
The plaintiff has proved that the defendant has committed fraud/consumer fraud. The dealer advised the plaintiff that the car was without accident both verbally and in writing. The plaintiff proved (CARFAX) and it was admitted (Defense expert testimony) that the car was in a previous accident. Defense only disputed severity of the accident. Defense expert and the General Manager admitted that the dealer probably knew of the prior damage. He actually testified that the dealer did know that the car was in an accident. The car was inspected by used car manager, technicians, certification process (Lexus trained techs looking for accident damage) and elcometer use on car acquisitions. (THE USED CAR MANAGER NEVER TURNED UP TO TESTIFY) Even more significant is that this was a dealer not a Chevy dealer!! Who would be in a better position to know that the car was not in MFGR-HIGHLINE- FRONT LINE CONDITION? Nobody. The dealer’s claim or assertion of ignorance as to any prior damage is both insulting and incredulous. The Manufacturer representative testified that bondo should not be used on certified cars (not Lexus quality repair) and any through panel penetration would render a car non-certifiable. (This was his initial testimony and then there was a break and Ms. Lawyer asked him the same question and his answer mysteriously changed)
Dealer Pay Plan Litigation: Sales people suing the dealership for wages
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.
Claims for consumer fraud against indirect sellers
NEW JERSEY LAW AND THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
NO DIRECT CONTACT IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CONSUMER
THE DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION THAT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DIRECTLY SELL OR HAVE ANY DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE LAW, INCLUDING THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
A. NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP OR CONTRACT IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT TO MAINTAIN A CLAIM UNDER THE CFA
The lack of a contractual relationship or privity does not automatically defeat a the plaintiff’s claim. The determination of whether a duty exists is generally considered a matter of law to be decided by the court. Carvalho v. Toll Bros. and Developers, supra, 143 N.J. at 572; S.P. v. Collier High School, 319 N.J.Super. 452, 467,(App.Div.1999). The assessment of fairness and policy “involves identifying, weighing, and balancing several factors-the relationship of the parties, the nature of the attendant risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and the public interest in the proposed solution” Zielinsky v. Professional Appraisals 326 N.J.Super 219 (App.Div 1999).
There is no privity requirement to maintain a cause of action under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In Alloway v. General Marine Ind., 149 N.J. 620 (1997), the Supreme Court held that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not require privity to maintain a cause of action. In Alloway, the plaintiff purchased a defective boat, which was built by the (manufacturer) defendant. The plaintiff instituted suit against the manufacturer and other defendants for tort (negligence) and warranty claims. The Court dismissed the tort claims and permitted the plaintiff to proceed on the warranty claims, holding that privity was required for tort claims, but not for warranty type claims. The underpinnings of the decision were that the plaintiff had statutory avenues of remedy including, but not limited to, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to address economic injuries to property. Id. at 639 – 640. The Court specifically left unanswered whether or not tort or contract law applies to a product that poses a risk of causing personal injuries or property damage, but has caused only economic loss to the product itself.
The trend in the application of the Consumer Fraud Act has been to expand liability to those “upstream, in the chain of commerce,” including but not limited to remote suppliers of component parts whose products are passed on to a buyer and its representations are made to, or intended to be conveyed to the ultimate purchaser. Perth Amboy Iron Works v. Amhouse, 226 N.J. Super 200, 211 (App. Div. 1998).
A civil lawsuit for selling a certified pre owned car with damage against the dealer and the manufacturer
CPO DAMAGED CAR
Plaintiff, JOHN DOE
Vs.
FAMILY AUTO GROUP, MANUFACTURER,
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
The plaintiff, residing in Edison, New Jersey, says by way of complaint against the defendants as follows:
1.Family 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, the 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 40,500.
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 ›
Civil Complaint for selling a damaged car that was a CPO or certified pre owned car
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 ›