Articles Tagged with consumer lawyer

|

New Jersey Lemon Law Update January 2020

There have been no statutory amendments modifications or other significant changes and the New Jersey Lemon Law. The update is that there is no update. I just recently updated my New Jersey Lemon Law page at my website.

There is a used New Jersey lemon and there is a new New Jersey Lemon Law. The remedies are different for those claiming they have purchased a lemon. However, the underlying concept is that the use/value/safety of the vehicle you were driving has been substantially impaired. Each statutory provision, used car lemon law and a new car lemon law, spells out the remedies to which you are entitled. The New Jersey new car lemon law provides for a repurchase formula with attorney’s fees and costs.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

flag-Copy-300x201STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case arises out of the plaintiff’s purchase of the 2005 Pontiac Bonneville from the defendants on or about July 1, 2014. At the time the purchase the vehicle had 78,811 miles.  The purchase price of the automobile was $9,995.  The finance charges over the life of the contract were $4,712. The plaintiff was obligated to make monthly payments on the first of the month beginning August 1, 2014 in the amount of $340.00.

The plaintiff continued to the payments from August until October however a dispute arose when the plaintiff wanted the defendant to pay for broken motor mounts for $222.00.  The plaintiff signed retail installment sales contract evidencing the nature and extent of the payments however he was not provided with a copy of the contract. The plaintiff also signed a buyer’s order indicating that there was a documentary service fee of $295.

The plaintiff refused to pay for the broken motor mounts demanding that the dealership pay. The plaintiff fell behind on payments and the vehicle was repossessed on or about November 9, 2014. The car was supposedly resold about six months later. Post repossession and sale were allegedly sent to the plaintiff. However the defendant dealership sent them to the wrong address. After the vehicle was sold, more than 6 months later, another letter was sent to the plaintiff providing a breakdown of the sale however it was sent to the wrong address.

The notices sent to the plaintiff demanded a gate fee of $65 for the plaintiff to access his vehicle in order to obtain his belongings. The defendant dealership completed various documents with the Division of Motor Vehicles to obtain title to the automobile. Their certification was falsified in obtaining the documentation to get the title to resell the vehicle.

The plaintiff is obtained from the DMV a record of the vehicles which were purchased and sold by the defendant dealership which also indicates the time of the purchase and the resale. (Highlighted VINS)(1-16, 81-82 OPRA DEMAND) It appears as though the defendant engaged in a pattern of practice of selling vehicles repossessed in the maintaining them for a significant period of time probably on their lot.

Continue reading ›

|

Carroll is a very accomplished professional. With more than 30 years of experience he has a certain way of doing things. In this role-play I attempt to show him how the use of logic and mathematics is far superior to BULLSHIT and works far better with today’s informed consumer. You make the call…

|

National Insurance Crime Bureau or NICB, appears to be an organization, a not-for-profit organization, to assist various entities including law enforcement and insurance companies in preventing various types of insurance fraud. It also appears that they had created, maintain and utilize a database which obtains information from insurance companies among other sources. It appears through the website that there is a service and/or database which were created through National Insurance Brime Bureau that appears to store information on vehicles, stored through their vehicle identification numbers.

It also appears that there is something called VINCheck which is a service various entities can use to check the history of automobiles. One would assume that the reliability and the usefulness of this database depend upon the source of the information.

The NICB was formed in 1992 from a merger between the National Automobile Theft Bureau (NATB) and the Insurance Crime Prevention Institute (ICPI), both of which were not-for-profit organizations. The NATB — which managed vehicle theft investigations and developed vehicle theft databases for use by the insurance industry — dates to the early 20th century, while the ICPI investigated insurance fraud for approximately 20 years before joining with the NATB to form the present National Insurance Crime Bureau.

NICB’s VINCheck is a free service provided to the public to assist in determining if a vehicle has been reported as stolen, but not recovered, or has been reported as a salvage vehicle by cooperating NICB member insurance companies. To perform a search, a vehicle identification number (VIN) is required. A maximum of five searches can be conducted within a 24-hour period per IP address.

Continue reading ›

|

It appears as though the New York Atty. Gen. has clamped down on a number of large, franchised dealerships. It appears as though the New York Atty. Gen. has clamped down on dealerships selling a product which is produced, distributed and presumably created by a company called Credit Forget it.  In June of last year the New York State Atty. Gen. assessed a tremendously large fine against the company called Credit Forget It.  It appears as though the fine assessed against this company was in excess of $14 million. The New York State Atty. Gen. apparently considered the product improper and should not be sold with an in conjunction with the financing of automobiles.

After the New York Atty. Gen. shut down this company they then proceeded against all the dealerships were selling the product. It appears as though the allegations are that the dealerships were improperly selling the product, asserting that it was free one was not and selling a product that was in essence worthless. This is my take from the articles which have been published on the Internet. The following is contained in one of the articles:

According to the lawsuit, the Koeppel dealerships used deceptive sales tactics, including charging consumers for services while concealing such charges from the consumers, or by misrepresenting that the services were free. In fact, law enforcement indicated consumers did not receive the credit repair and identity theft protection services for which they were charged.

Continue reading ›
Contact Information
788 Shrewsbury Ave
Building 2, #204
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Phone: (732) 709-7277Fax: (732) 879-0213

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design