New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

CAR DEALERSHIP SELLS CAR TO TWO BLIND PEOPLE.

April 9, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

CAR DEALERSHIP SELLS CAR TO TWO BLIND PEOPLE.

This is not a joke. It is true.

The names will be withheld until suit is filed BUT today I saw, possibly, the worst case in the many years that I have been doing this type of work.

Both of my clients are legally blind, the primary obligor and the cosigner. They do not even have a driver’s license, nor are they permitted to drive. The dealership even got the car registered and insured. The customer was at the dealership with his cane and his glasses. When they told me the story it was hard to believe. They are both legally blind.

To make matters even worse, the car is a mess. It looks like it was in a prior accident with a different hood and various parts are melted on the interior of the car. They were told the car had only one prior owner, when in fact it had two.

The following are the causes of action (theories of liability) against the dealer and/or the lender:

• Consumer Fraud-deceptive conduct. Cox v. Sears.
• Fraud • Breach of contract • Breach of good faith and fair dealings. Wilson v. Hess
• Revocation. Cuesta v. Classic
• Negligence • Discrimination against disabled persons, the blind. Law against discrimination.
• Declaratory relief that the contract is void ab initio (from the beginning)
Continue reading ›

Consumer Fraud Arbitration

March 5, 2009 | Jonathan Rudnick

I recently filed a demand for an arbitration under the American Arbitration Association consumer rules against a New Jersey dealership in South Jersey. The hearing is concluded and a decision should be rendered soon. I will start from the beginning and explain how arbitration works, as opposed to a court case filed in Superior Court.

Remember all defendants are presumed innocent and the plaintiff has the obligation to prove the case.

State Sues to Shut Down Credit Repair Business

October 20, 2008 | Jonathan Rudnick

The Asbury Park Press has reported that a credit reporting company in Howell NJ has been sued by the State. According to the story, the name of the company is United Credit Adjusters. It is alleged that they accepted fees and failed to perform the represented services. The complaint also alleges that they were misrepresenting the effects of bankruptcy filings and representing that they could reduce credit card debt by almost 50%!

This story must be filed under the heading “if it is too good to be true it probably is.” There are very fully reviewed in this economy strict Federal regulations and Statutes governing credit repair that should be carefully reviewed.

The most important thing to remember is that no credit repair organization is permitted to charge in advance of services performed.

Section 404
(b) Payment in Advance.–No credit repair organization may charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration for the performance of any service which the credit repair organization has agreed to perform for any consumer before such service is fully performed.

There is also a right to cancel under the Federal Statute.
Continue reading ›

Car Dealerships and the Division of Banking and Insurance

August 24, 2008 | Jonathan Rudnick

New Jersey has a Division of Banking and Insurance.. There is a special division for banking. Most people forget that car dealerships have a banking license and are subject to regulation by the Division of Banking and Insurance. You can complete the following form and file a complaint against the dealership pertaining to banking issues.

The following information is contained on the website pertaining to filing a complaint.

How to File a Complaint

Whole Foods Recall

August 21, 2008 | Jonathan Rudnick

I happened to be shopping at Whole Foods recently when I was “interviewed” by a TV reporter from News 12 regarding the beef recall.

The purpose of this is to be fair to Whole Foods. I stated in the interview that I thought Whole Foods was a good store and I would continue to shop there. Although I have not seen the interview, I have been told that it was not included in the piece.

If you are curious about beef recalls and the food industry you have to read Fast Food Nation. My only major complaint is: what good is a recall after I have eaten the beef and tossed any proof of purchase? None. There should be a better system. Unfortunately, beef recalls are more common than we would care to believe.

Cherry Hill Triplex

August 18, 2008 | Jonathan Rudnick

The Attorney General’s office has filed suit against Cherry Hill Triplex for violation for the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Cherry Hill Triplex is contesting the charges and asserts their innocence. The State has the burden to prove the case and Cherry Hill is presumed innocent until such time that the State proves their case. The lawsuit asserts that Cherry Hill Triplex violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. A copy of the complaint can be obtained from the Attorney General’s Office.

Count I Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

a. Advertising a guaranteed and/or unconditional $8,000.00 trade-in allowance,

BMW recalling 200,000 vehicles for possible air bag defects

August 14, 2008 | Jonathan Rudnick

USA today is reporting that there is a major BMW recall for airbags. The recall involves the 2006 3 Series, the 2004-2006 5 Series, and the 2004-2006 X3 compact SUV in the United States. NHTSA opened an investigation into the issue in September 2007 and upgraded its probe in January. In addition to the vehicles under Wednesday’s recall, the ongoing investigation also includes the 2004-2006 Z4, 2006 X5, 2006 6 Series and some 2004-2006 7 Series vehicles.

To respond to the problem, BMW said it would extend the warranty to 10 years without any mileage limit for the following vehicles: 2006 6 Series, 2006 3 Series with standard seat, 2004-2005 Z4, 2004-2006 7 Series, 2006 X5, and 2004-2006 5 Series with comfort seats.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tracks and compiles recalls and Technical bulletins for all cars and you should check for issues with your car.

The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick

Recalls

Recalls

Lemon Law
Continue reading ›

Junk Faxes and Damages

August 12, 2008 | Jonathan Rudnick

There is an entire area of law that addresses junk faxes. This law as a general matter sets many limitation in the sending of junk faxes. 47 U.S.C.A. 227 et seq.

The basis theory on damages is that junk faxes cost people money in the form of wasted time, paper and toner. This is why there are statutory damages of $500 per violating junk fax.

The cases can be pursued in State or Federal Court and provide an award of counsel fees. If the Court finds that the violation was intentional the Court has the option to triple damages as punitive damages.