Member of:
New Jersey State Bar Association Badge
LawLine Online Faculty

|

DANGEROUS CERTIFIED PRE OWNED CARS SOLD BY FRANCHISE DEALERSHIPS

It appears as though General Motors was cited by the Federal Trade Commission with regard to selling certified used vehicles are certified preowned program which had open recalls the actually dangerous. In addition, the selling dealer’s also appeared to have been cited and find by the FTC. It is unclear what extent General Motors is responsible since they did not sell cars only their authorized, franchise dealers sold the vehicles. Under the certified preowned program selling dealer is obligated to inspect the car pursuant to General Motors standards. It would be the duty and obligation selling dealer to check for recalls and make sure that the vehicles have been repaired and recall something. I’m assuming, if the vehicles were owned by General Motors previously, it would be the responsibility of General Motors to repair and or for recalls. It is unclear to what extent the liability is based directly on General Motors were the liability is based on the actions of their authorized dealers. The complaint appears to indicate that the vehicles were sold with open recalls. It appears as though the FTC is holding the manufacture responsible for authorize, franchise dealers selling vehicles with open, dangerous, active recalls. I would guess, the ultimate, it is responsibility factor to make sure that these recalls are prepared at the authorized dealers in the CPO or certified preowned program.  The following was contained in the complaint

Since at least November 2014, Respondent has disseminated or has caused to be disseminated advertisements promoting the sale of “Certified Pre-Owned Vehicles.”Respondent establishes criteria for certifying pre-owned vehicles, which are then inspected and sold by Respondent’s local dealerships. Respondent provides consumers a 12-month/12,000-mile “bumper to bumper”
Continue reading ›

|

AutoCheck and CARFAX

I have reviewed the Autocheck site and have attempted to determine the difference between Carfax and AutoCheck. This is difficult to see and certainly difficult to understand and the plantation of the reporting of the data. In simple terms it’s hard to see the difference between the reports from an AutoCheck and report Carfax. Ultimately, it would be in the experience of the user as to the difference in these two services. The only real differences in the services appear to be the corporations behind them. Think that AutoCheck since it is backed and owned by Experian would have significantly more information. In my experience I’ve not found this to be true. Most of the time I have found Carfax to contain more, relevant, up-to-date information. However the certain his varied case-by-case circumstance. Just by looking at the list of the sources for AutoCheck it appears as though there is one major difference, in my opinion. It appears as though collision shop to report to AutoCheck. In my experience I’ve not seen collision shop reporting to AutoCheck outside of accidents. This means that if there is an accident in the history then I might find the report from a collision facility. Very rarely have I found a collision facility reporting outside of a please reported accident. My personal experience. However you need to review the AutoCheck website to see the nature and extent of their data sources. If you are attempting to purchase the vehicle it might be a good idea to purchase the AutoCheck and Carfax and compare them. Even before you run the Carfax or the AutoCheck on the vehicle you intend to purchase you might want to try running AutoCheck and Carfax and other vehicles in your household, family or friends with their permission. Then you might have the opportunity to see the difference between these 2 reports and determine which one is more useful with regard to wiring a vehicle and attempting to determine the nature and extent of the history of this vehicle.

Remember these are two separate companies and have similar data sources to be careful when using one over the other

|

What information is contained in a CARFAX report

Many people are curious as to where Carfax gets all the information. Fortunately, the company who collects this information, Carfax, has placed the sources of their information on their website. One only needs to look at the website to determine if  the source for all the information is accurate. The interesting item on this is the information from insurance companies. Many times people think that all accidents or all claims that are involved with insurance companies get reported to Carfax. According to the Carfax site this is not the case. According to the Carfax site only the information which results in salvage or junk titles gets reported. There is no specific delineation, no specific indication, that any and all claims that are paid on vehicles are reported to Carfax. As an example:  There is an automobile accident and a vehicle receives damage and must be repaired which is paid for by the insurance company. The vehicle is not salvaged or total. One would think that this information should be or would be available to Carfax. According to the website this information is not available to Carfax. The accident report created by the police department might indicate an accident. But without this police reported accident and without this salvage title or junk title being issued it does not appear that in this information be reported. In my experience this is a common misconception with regard to the information contained in and reported on and through Carfax is. Carfax is an excellent resource to look at as far as the background of a vehicle. However it is imperative that you understand the entire data gathering process that is undergone in creating these reports. Nicely, Carfax has created on their website in place to examine all the sources of information. Once you look at this you can determine whether or not you find it personally useful.

The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick LLC is a consumer law law firm

|

The following is part of TILA or Truth In Lending and addresses cash against credit transactions:

 

 TILA (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.18(d), (e)): The failure to disclose the warranty and the cost of the GPS device as finance charges was a violation of regulation Z (12 C.F.R. § 1026.1), which implements TILA. “Regulation Z requires that the creditor provide consumers of closed-end credit, such as retail installment sales contracts, with clear and conspicuous written credit disclosures, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.17, including the finance charge and the APR. 12 C.F.R. § 1026.18(d), (e).” The finance charge is defined by Regulations Z as “any charge payable directly or indirectly by the consumer and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to or a condition of the extension of credit. It does not include any charge of a type payable in a comparable cash transaction.” Since only the credit consumers were subjected to these charges they amounted to finance charges under Regulation Z, and thus violated TILA.

|

State Agrees To Settlement with Cherry Hill Triplex in 2009

It appears as though the Division of Consumer Affairs has issued a press release settling an open matter with Cherry Hill Triplex, which is actually Foulke Management Corporation. Cherry Hill Triplex has agreed to a $750,000 settlement with the Attorney General’s Office and the Division of Consumer Affairs: $450,000 is restitution and $300,000 in the civil penalties, which are suspended. The Division of Consumer Affairs case resolves around a lawsuit they filed in March 2006 alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Allegations arose out of the companies’ advertisement of $8,000 guaranteed for the trade, no credit check and instant credit qualifications. The Division of Consumer Affairs was alleging that Cherry Hill Triplex specifically stated “You instantly qualified, regardless of your credit”. The state also alleged that Cherry Hill Triplex failed to properly display prices on new and used motor vehicles. It appears as though Cherry Hill Triplex got caught making promises that they could not keep. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act prohibits affirmative misrepresentations that have the capacity to mislead.

Te Division of Consumer affairs has the power to enforce the Consumer Fraud Act and file suit and negotiate fines and penalties that have been or could be assessed by the State.  This Division has investigated and fined many dealer for deceptive practices.  Remember that you can files suit on your own against and business even if under investigation by the Division of Consumer Affairs

|

The following are only allegation and must be proven to be true.

The Slatest and AP are reporting on a lawsuit about certain wines having been tested and found to have high levels of arsenic according to the facts underlying the lawsuit. CBS has had the wines independently tested by their own experts.

It appears certain wines have been tested and the levels of arsenic were high. CBS news also reported the story.

Continue reading ›

|

New Jersey has resolved claims against HIKO energy. It was alleged that this company was making false promises as to savings that customers would receive when they switched their service to HIKO energy.

They mislead customers based on the following:

Guarantees that, if they switched from their utility companies, they would see monthly savings of as much as 10 percent in their electric and/or natural gas bills during the first six months.

Statements to consumers that, after the first six months, their monthly bills would never exceed those of the utility companies.

According to the company’s website they represent the following:

HIKO Energy, LLC is committed to lowering the cost for energy consumers in all markets we serve. As a local, independent supplier, we understand the needs of both residents and businesses within our greater community. With that in mind, we strive to offer the most competitive pricing in the marketplace. Our goal is to provide excellent customer service and a tailored cost savings plan that’s right for each person or need.

This company now must change their practices.
Continue reading ›

|

If you purchased these products you might have a claim against the retailer for a refund or other damages to your car

NJ BAN

BANNED MOTOR OIL PRODUCTS:

Auto Club Motor Oil SAE 5W-30 Auto Club Motor Oil SAE 10W-30 Auto Club Motor Oil SAE 10W-40 Auto Club Motor Oil SAE 20W-50 Black Knight Motor Oil 5-30 Black Knight Motor Oil 10-40 LubeState Motor Oil SAE 10W-30 MaxiGuard MG 10-30 MaxiGuard MG 10-40 MaxiGuard MG 20-50 MaxiGuard MG SAE30 Orbit Motor Oil 5-20 Orbit Motor Oil 10-40 TruStar Motor Oil 10-30 U.S. Economy Motor Oil 5-30 U.S. Economy Motor Oil 10-40 U.S. Economy Motor Oil SAE 10W-40 U.S. Spirit Motor Oil SAE 10W-30 U.S. Spirit Motor Oil SAE 10W-40

Read More: NJ puts the brakes on fraudulent motor oil | http://nj1015.com/nj-puts-the-brakes-on-fraudulent-motor-oil/?trackback=tsmclip Continue reading ›

|

People ask me many of these questions:

Can I sue car dealership for breach of contract?

Can I sue a car dealership for false advertisement?

Can I sue a car dealership for lying?

Can you sue a car dealership?

Can you sue a car dealership for selling you a lemon?

Suing a car dealership is possible?

How to sue a car dealer?

How to sue a car dealer for misrepresentation?

The answer is yes but the matter can get complicated and you need solid, experienced legal help
Legal Help for car dealer claims
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