CONSUMER FRAUD

Consumer Fraud Jury Trial: Trying a Consumer Fraud Case

January 16, 2021 | Jonathan Rudnick

I just updated my webpage to include an example of an opening statement in a trial against the car dealership for selling a car, used car with prior damage. Ordinarily, this takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes depending on how the court schedules the opening statements. This is the usual length of the trial in case which might last 3 or 4 days. Defense opening statement which goes 2nd at trial, would also be about 15 to 20 minutes.

This is an example of an opening statement, and a trial, where the plaintiff purchased the vehicle and the dealer told him the car was not in an accident. The plaintiff later discovered that the car was in an accident. This is an example of what I might tell the jury in a similar or substantially similar case. Each case is completely different but this auto fraud case is a bit of the standard fact pattern and has many common factors across cases I have handled.

Dealership selling damaged cars

January 10, 2021 | Jonathan Rudnick

New post on the web site about car dealerships selling damaged cars

What do you do, what can you do when a dealership sells you a damaged car

https://www.consumer-attorney.com/i-want-to-sue-a-car-dealership-lawyers-that-deal-with-car-dealer.html

Bait and Switch Advertising and false advertising

January 1, 2021 | Jonathan Rudnick

I just updated some content on bait and switch advertising. Click here to review.

I litigated numerous cases this year on the bait and switch advertising. It was a case that I fought for over 2 years which was thrown out the trial court, for nap the Appellate Division and applied to the Supreme Court for review. Unfortunately, I was not successful in this case however, it was, in my opinion an issue which needed to the address. It dealt with dealership’s and the manufacturer advertising course which were not available for sale as they were already sold. My legal theory was that you cannot advertise a vehicle for sale if it was already sold. If he were advertising the vehicle which was already sold by very definition was bait and switch for false advertising and deceptive business practice.

In my opinion, the court did not address the key, relevant issues which were the defendant’s conduct. The court, at the trial level, held that the loss is hypothetical. The court at the appellate level held that the plaintiff did not establish a measurable loss as the plaintiff needed to prove that there was an offer to sell the car for a price over the advertised or offered price.

Claims for consumer fraud against indirect sellers

February 16, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

NEW JERSEY LAW AND THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

NO DIRECT CONTACT IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CONSUMER

THE DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION THAT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DIRECTLY SELL OR HAVE ANY DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE LAW, INCLUDING THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

A. NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP OR CONTRACT IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT TO MAINTAIN A CLAIM UNDER THE CFA

The lack of a contractual relationship or privity does not automatically defeat a the plaintiff’s claim. The determination of whether a duty exists is generally considered a matter of law to be decided by the court. Carvalho v. Toll Bros. and Developers, supra, 143 N.J. at 572; S.P. v. Collier High School, 319 N.J.Super. 452, 467,(App.Div.1999). The assessment of fairness and policy “involves identifying, weighing, and balancing several factors-the relationship of the parties, the nature of the attendant risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and the public interest in the proposed solution” Zielinsky v. Professional Appraisals 326 N.J.Super 219 (App.Div 1999).
There is no privity requirement to maintain a cause of action under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In Alloway v. General Marine Ind., 149 N.J. 620 (1997), the Supreme Court held that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not require privity to maintain a cause of action. In Alloway, the plaintiff purchased a defective boat, which was built by the (manufacturer) defendant. The plaintiff instituted suit against the manufacturer and other defendants for tort (negligence) and warranty claims. The Court dismissed the tort claims and permitted the plaintiff to proceed on the warranty claims, holding that privity was required for tort claims, but not for warranty type claims. The underpinnings of the decision were that the plaintiff had statutory avenues of remedy including, but not limited to, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to address economic injuries to property. Id. at 639 – 640. The Court specifically left unanswered whether or not tort or contract law applies to a product that poses a risk of causing personal injuries or property damage, but has caused only economic loss to the product itself.
The trend in the application of the Consumer Fraud Act has been to expand liability to those “upstream, in the chain of commerce,” including but not limited to remote suppliers of component parts whose products are passed on to a buyer and its representations are made to, or intended to be conveyed to the ultimate purchaser. Perth Amboy Iron Works v. Amhouse, 226 N.J. Super 200, 211 (App. Div. 1998).