New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog
2011 Subaru Outback and 2010 Subaru Outback
A review of the New Jersey Lemon Law unit reveals that there is a large number of buybacks for this make and model:
Anti-Consumer Arbitration Decision: US Supreme Court
US Supreme Court Decision on Arbitration
Recently, the US Supreme Court decided a significant arbitration case. The issue is whether or not the Federal Arbitration Act permitted the waiver of class action claims in a consumer contract. At the state level under the state laws, the states were divided as to whether or not a consumer could waive the right to a class action. Specifically, under New Jersey Law, the Supreme Court had held that the waiver of class action claims under certain circumstances were unconscionable. Thus, even if a selling dealer or manufacturer had a class action provision in the contract prohibiting the plaintiff to participate in a class action, this “clause” was not enforceable as part of the contract. There are specifically two cases, which were entitled “Delta Funding” and “Mohammad.”
The US Supreme Court held, however, that the policy underlying the Federal Arbitration Act and the expeditious resolution of disputes took precedence over the public policy behind class actions. In addition, the Court held that class actions could not be appropriately handled in the arbitration contacts. As an example, if there was an arbitration clause but no waiver of class action, various attorneys could potentially or were within the right to file a class action in the arbitration forum. JAMS and AAA had their specific provisions for arbitrating class actions. The Supreme Court held that the risks of mistakes were too great and thus determined that class actions could not be arbitrated.
Chrysler 2008 Town & Country Alleged a Lemon
Originally, I filed a law suit against the new Chrysler Corporation with regard to a vehicle which was purchased by a current client of mine. The client experienced numerous issues with this vehicle including transmission, brakes and electrical problems. My client is alleging that there were numerous repairs on the breaks during the first 34,000 miles. Specifically, my client had to get authorization and claim number from Chrysler before any repairs would be done. We have been doing research on the internet and are attempting to discern the nature and extent of numerous prior problems by any 2008 Town & Country owners.
If you are a Town & Country owner, 2008, and have any complaints, communications with the manufacturer, communications with the selling dealer or other e-mail communications, please contact this law firm so that we might discuss obtaining this information from you.
Under New Jersey law, for a Lemon Law claim, the plaintiff is obligated to prove under certain circumstances that the use, value and safety of a vehicle have been substantially impaired. The claims in this case revolve around defective brakes, defective transmission and a defective electrical system, and the plaintiff is alleging that the use, value and safety have been substantially impaired.
Anti-Consumer Laws to be Passed: Call Your Representative
ANTI-CONSUMER LEGISLATION IS COMING SOON TO YOU HERE IN NEW JERSEY
The New Jersey Assembly and the Senate have introduced bills that would permanently and prohibitively make New Jersey an anti-consumer forum and roll back years of consumer protection laws which have accumulated benefits for thousands, if not millions, of New Jersey consumers.
A3333 which has been introduced into the State Assembly and parallel introduction of S2538 into the State Senate are anti-consumer and significantly reduce consumers’ rights in the State of New Jersey.
What is Fraud and Consumer Fraud?
Although I do a significant amount of auto fraud litigation, the concept does not change with regard to the sale of any goods such as houses or any other consumer goods. Again, if you know the purchaser of the good would make a different decision and you fail to disclose and you know this, this would be deemed fraud.
This is particularly applicable to dealers in auto fraud litigation. In many, many cases which I litigate, it is alleged that the dealer knew that a vehicle had been damaged in transit or otherwise, whether the vehicle be new or used. You would be surprised of the number of cases where new cars were sold with transit damage. Clearly, if a new car has any damage, in my opinion, it must be disclosed since it is material to the transaction.
Once a vehicle has damage, I would consider this a used car rather than a new car. Although the law determines that a used car is one which had been titled, based on the use, I would submit that the vehicle would now be a used vehicle. In addition, on used vehicles, dealers are required to inspect them for safety under the law and especially the certified used vehicles undergo an extensive process. When the dealership sells one of its cars and they know they were damaged and fail to disclose them to the purchasing public, they commit an act of either fraud or consumer fraud.
Fraud and Silence
Can you commit fraud by maintaining silence?
The simple answer to this is yes. Under New Jersey law, you can commit fraud or consumer fraud when there is a fact which a seller of a good knows will be relevant to the purchaser’s decision, and as a material fact to the transaction, failure to disclose same will be considered fraud if the claimant can prove intent.
In simple words, if you know something is important and do not tell the other person and their decision on the particular transaction would change based on that information, it is fraud, assuming it was done intentionally.
Jury Trial and Jury Questions
This is a list of questions that a jury might have to answer at the end of a trial:
1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant committed any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation as I have defined in connection with the transaction involving the sale of the subject vehicle?
YES _______ NO _______ VOTE ________
Excessive Arbitration fees. Do you have to arbitrate?
The fees associated with the National Arbitration Forum are excessive and would effectively prohibit the plaintiff from pursuing her statutory and common law claims. The United States Supreme Court in Green Tree Financial v. Larketta Randolph 531 U.S. (2000) held that excessive arbitration costs form a basis to challenge the enforceability of an arbitration clause. The Court did, however, hold that it is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate this fact. The Supreme Court did not undertake such an analysis in Green Tree because no such facts were presented to the Court.
The costs associated with arbitrating a case consistent with National Arbitration Forum guidelines would require the plaintiff to pay excessive fees which are unconscionable in light of the plaintiff’s financial condition. The plaintiff brings home approximately $372.00 per week working as an operator for Verizon. The plaintiff’s expenses are approximately $1,500.00 per month. The plaintiff is a single mother and resides with her mother and daughter in South River, New Jersey. The plaintiff has $1,600.00 in the bank between checking and savings accounts. The National Arbitration Forum fees and costs demonstrate the cost structure associated with filing a claim. There are four types of hearings: Document Hearings, Telephone Participatory Hearings, On-Line Participatory Hearings, and In-Person Participatory Hearings. There are also filing fees ranging from $150.00 to $14,252.00. The minimum hearing fee for an In-Person Participatory Hearing is $500.00 for the initial session plus $450.00 for each additional session. This is for hearings where the amount in dispute ranges from $15,000 to $25,000. Claims which range from $250,000 to $500,000 cost $3,000.00 for the initial session and $2,000 for each additional session.
Excessive Arbitration fees
The plaintiff has made numerous claims pursuant to Federal and State statutory law as well as New Jersey Common Law. The plaintiff has also made a demand for punitive damages for the statutory and common law violations alleged. New Jersey Law permits the plaintiff to recover up to $350,000 in punitive damages or five times compensatory damages, whichever is greater. Moreover, the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Under any of these statutory schemes, including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of the action. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act’s rights and remedies are cumulative and in addition to any other claims that the plaintiff might have under either Federal or State Law. Therefore, if the plaintiff is successful under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act she would not be prohibited from collecting damages either Truth In Lending, Equal Credit Opportunity Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the plaintiff will be seeking an amount from $250,000 to $500,000, which requires a $3,000.00 fee for the initial session and $2,000.00 for each additional session. This would be in addition to any fees and costs which are charged by National Arbitration Forum for amendments, subpoenas, discovery orders, continuances and time waivers. Simply put, the fee structure associated with the National Arbitration Forum is excessive in light of the plaintiff’s salary. Assuming the plaintiff had no expenses, with her take home pay at $372.00 per week it would be unreasonable to assume that the plaintiff could proceed with the In-Person Participatory Hearing. Clearly, the fact that there are less expensive methods, document hearings, telephone participatory hearings and on-line participatory hearings, is of no consequence. Nonetheless, the fees for these hearings in the $250,000 to $500,000 range are excessive. A document hearing in this range is $5,000.00. A telephone participatory hearing in this range is $1,750.00 for the initial session and $1,250.00 for each additional session. The fee for the on-line participatory hearing is $2,500.00 for the initial session and $1,500.00 for each additional session. This is in addition to the $1,000.00 filing fee. This cannot be the effective vindication of the plaintiff’s rights as envisioned by the United States Supreme Court in Green Tree v. Randolph.