New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

Was Your Car Damaged Before Purchased?

June 5, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Laws
In a dealership litigation where a Plaintiff is alleging that a vehicle has been in a prior automobile accident despite representations from the dealer to the contrary that the vehicle has not been in an accident, one issue in the case is (a) to what extent that the dealer was aware, and (b) to what extent is the vehicle subject to repair costs. Ordinarily, in these cases but not necessarily in every case, an expert might be obtained to determine the nature and extent of the damage, to what extent the damage was known to the selling dealer and whether or not the dealer should have been unknown of the defects and the level of repairs that needed to be occasioned upon the vehicle.

Auto Dealerships and Ethics

June 3, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

Auto Dealerships and Ethics.

There is an organization to which many dealer belong, NADA, and it is dedicated to helping dealers amongst other purposes.

They produce and collect many statistics but they also have ethics guidelines posters for dealers. Is it fair to assume of a dealer belong to NADA they comply with this set for guidelines? Good questions

New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs

May 24, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

The state has a significant amount of power through the Division of Consumer Affairs to protect the public interest and shut down deceptive businesses. If you go to the website, you will see a listing of investigations wherein they filed complaint alleging that various businesses engage in acts of fraud and consumer fraud with regard to the public.

As an example, on or about May 15, 2012, the Court issued temporary restraints against a Paterson used car dealership after the State Division of Consumer Affairs filed a suit. If you go to this website, you will see a listing of various actions taken by the New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs including suing a North Jersey moving company for predatory and unconscionable business practices.

Paterson Car Dealership

Consumer Affiars Files Suit: Lencore Leasing, Inc.,d/b/a North Jersey Auto Mall and DCH Motors, and Lenny Belot,

May 23, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

(remember, innocent until proven otherwise)(these are only allegations and MUST be proven in court with admissible evidence)

The Division of consumer affairs has filed a complaint against Lencore Leasing, Inc., which does business as North Jersey Auto Mall and DCH Motors, and Lenny Belot, the owner/operator of the dealership,

Link to the story

New Jersey Office of Consumer Protection

May 15, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

New Jersey Office of Consumer Protection

The New Jersey Office of Consumer Protection is consumer friendly and offers many services.

The following are complaint forms available on the site

New Jersey Class Actions: Auto Fraud and Consumer Lawyer

April 15, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

This is a copy of a complaint that was filed in New Jersey Superior Court

The plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, state the following:

COUNT I 1. On or about October 2010, the defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees were licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey and employed within their capacity as agents of the aforementioned defendants including, but not limited to, Chapel Heights Auto, Apollo Auto Sales, Inc. and Auto Car Ltd.

Consumer Class Actions and Defective Cars

March 2, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

Consumer Class Actions and Defective Cars

There are some great websites that track class action recently filed. Please review the link.

Upon review of the site it lists a few recently filed class actions, specifically one involving Honda Hybrids There is a link to an actual copy of the over three hundred page complaint.

GMC Acadia and Lemon Law (water leaks)

February 25, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

GMC Acadia and Lemon Law

Edmunds.com has provided a list of GMC Acadia customers that have been complaining about water leaks in their GMC Acadia, among other issues.

If you have this car and you are having problems with the vehicle, including water leaks, please contact The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick, LLC.

Parole Evidence and Consumer Fraud

February 1, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

THE PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE

The defendant’s claim that the plaintiff is barred by the ‘parole evidence rule’ is without merit. The current case has nothing to do with the terms and the contents of the agreement between the parties. The issue is the conduct of the defendants after the default on the agreement and GEMB obligation under the UCC and the Consumer Fraud Act. The court in Slowinski v. Valley National Bank 264 N.J.Super 172 (App.Div 1993) accepts this basic concept. If the defendant’s position was adopted the Slowinski holding would, effectively, be overruled. What does parole have to do with wrongful repossession? The alleged parole evidence does not fall within the definition of parole.

It is only after the meaning of the contract is discerned that the parole evidence rule comes into play to prohibit the introduction of extrinsic evidence to vary the terms of the contract. Conway v. 287 Corporate Ctr. Associates, 187 N.J. 259, 270 (2006). Even if the court were to apply the parole evidence rule to the facts here they fall within the fraud exception.

Arbitration and Consumer Fraud

January 30, 2012 | Jonathan Rudnick

THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ESTOPPED FORM ASSERTING THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE THIS LATE IN THE LITIGATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY 1) FILED A COUNTERCLAIM IN BREACH OF THEIR OWN AGREEMENT; 2) MOVED TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED ON THAT COUNTERCLAIM AGAIN BREACHING THEIR OWN AGREEMENT TO HAVE ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES

The defendant should be prohibited for enforcing the arbitration agreement because of (1) the extent of the time which they took to enforce the arbitration agreement, and (2) the making of a counterclaim clearly breached the agreement between the parties. The defendants breached the agreement by making a counterclaim rather than demanding arbitration and as such cannot enforce the agreement. Not only have they made a counterclaim but they have moved to enter a judgment on those pleadings.

It is black letter contract law that a material breach by either party to a bilateral contract excuses the other party from rendering any further contractual performance. Magnet Res., Inc. v. Summit MRI, Inc., 318 N.J. Super. 275, 285, 723 A.2d 976, 981 (App.Div. 1998). The court should hold that the defendants have waived their right to assert the matter should be arbitrated. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of waiver in Wein v. Morris, 194 N.J. 364, 376 (2008) and held the following: