There is a bill heading its way through the legislature: A3333
I will address many aspects of this bill, but it should be named properly since it is 100% anti-consumer and reduces if not completely eliminates the the Consumer Fraud Act. That’s right, it repeals the CONSUMER FRAUD ACT as a practical matter. Watch out, consumers, it’s open season on your pocketbooks if this bill passes.
I am calling this bill:
Consumer Law Resources. Here are some resources for consumer lawyers.
These were part of a web page
We won the appeal. The Appellate division determined that the the trial level made a mistake by dismissing the complaint on the summary judgment motion filed by the dealership and their lawyers.
A jury believing plaintiff’s description of the events could find that agents of Triplex sold a new car to plaintiff indirectly, through his parents who were acting as his agents, by falsely advertising the value of a trade-in and falsely promising to recast the loan if he paid the loan for eight months. The jurors could also find that as a consequence of Triplex’s false pretense and promise, plaintiff sustained an ascertainable loss equivalent to the difference between the $8000 credit advertised by Triplex and the value Triplex gave for the 1999 Ford. On these facts Triplex is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law simply because plaintiff did not sign the loan agreement and was not legally obligated to pay the amount due. SeeBrill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995) (discussing the showing required for a grant of summary judgment).
Any successful appeal is a very impressive task since I have heard that only one in ten appeals are successful!! Nonetheless the court did the right thing in permitting the plaintiff to pursue his claim against the dealership. We are awaiting a trial date for this matter in Camden County Superior Court.
The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
An invoice is a mere detailed statement of the nature, quantity and cost or price of the things invoiced. Dows v. National Exchange Bank of Milwaukee, 91 U.S. 618, 23 L.Ed. 214 (1875); Sturn v. Boker, 150 U.S. 312, 14 S.Ct. 99, 37 L.Ed. 1093 (1893). It has been held that a notation appearing on an invoice accompanying goods ordered by telephone did not constitute a contract; that an invoice is not a contract; and that silence may not operate as an assent. Tanenbaum Textile Co. v. Schlanger, 287 N.Y. 400, 40 N.E.2d 225 (1942). Albrecht Chemical Co. v. Anderson Trading Corp, 298 N.Y. 437, 84 N.E.2d 625 (1949). The retention of goods by a purchaser with notice of conditions or limitation of liability may in some instances amount to assent, depending upon proof of the principles of contract. Dale v. See, 51 N.J.L. 378, 18 A. 306, 5 L.R.A. 583 (Sup.Ct.1889). 1 Williston on Contracts (Rev. ed.), Sec. 91-91D. Hoffman Laroche v. Weisbard 19 N.J.Super 210, 245 (App.Div 1952).
This is especially true since there is no requirement for the plaintiff’s signature and there is no indication in the defendant’s submissions as to the nature and extent of the transmittal processing or the method by which the transaction was completed. There are too many factual issues to permit the court to assume that the rear of an unsigned invoice is the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. Quite simply, there is nothing in the terms or conditions that indicate these are exclusive and shall be deemed the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties for the purchase of the boat.
The issue is the enforceability of a forum selection clause.
The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the reverse side of an unsigned invoice constitutes all of the terms and conditions of the contract for the plaintiff’s purchase of the subject engines. It is too early in the litigation to make this determination. When the contract terms are ambiguous and the parties dispute their meaning, construction of the contract and application of any evidence submitted to prove the surrounding circumstances are for the jury. See State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Anderson, 70 N.J. Super. 520 524 (App. Div. 1961).
A review of the “invoice” demonstrates that the purchase price is on the front of the document and various terms are on the rear of the document. There is no indication that the plaintiff signed, was asked to sign, or actually was required to sign this invoice. There is no proof that the plaintiff even reviewed the rear of the invoice. There is no indication by the terms of the conditions at the rear the contract that by accepting delivery of the boat the plaintiff accepts all of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, this matter is not ripe for summary judgment at this time because there is potentially factual issue as to whether or not the reverse side of the “invoice” is determinative of the nature and extent of the relationship between the parties, whether or not there was an ongoing relationship between the parties prior to the date of the purchase, and whether or not the terms and conditions at the rear of the contract were intended to be a part of the transaction.
New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog
