New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer BlogNew 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
Articles Tagged with New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Guarantees Credit Approval. Financing Guaranteed. We finance Anyone. We will Get it Done.
Consumer Fraud and False Advertising:
Guaranteed Credit Approval. Financing Guaranteed. We finance Anyone. We will Get it Done.
Guarantee Credit Approval. Be wary and get help if you see this advertisement
You hear those advertisements all the time on the radio and TV. Credit Guaranteed. All you need is a job and pay stub. Rebuild your credit. Any deal.
There is no such thing as guaranteed credit. There is no such thing as guaranteed credit approval. Each and every transaction must be reviewed by a bank or lending source. The bank or the lending source make a decision to extend credit based on the credit score, your job and any one of numerous other items that might be applicable to the bank’s lending standards.
So when you hear the aforementioned promises or representations that there is guaranteed credit approval and all you need is a job or some type of pay stub this is quite frankly more likely than not false. Does it make sense that the bank would lend you money when you are not qualified to borrow the money. Absolutely not. Banks have lending standards. They do not lend money to anybody.
3.2 million False Claims Act Settlement: False Medicare claims to Government
Doctor’s estate, UMC Physicians paying $3.28 million to settle claims
DALLAS — The estate of Dr. Kenneth Michael Rice and UMC Physicians (UMCP) have agreed to pay a total of $3,280,000.00 to the United States and the State of Texas to settle allegations that Dr. Rice and UMCP violated the False Claims Act, announced U.S. Attorney John Parker of the Northern District of Texas.
Specifically, the United States alleged that Dr. Rice, by and through UMCP, submitted false claims for payment to Medicaid and Medicare related to in-person evaluation and management services, as well as critical care services. The estate of Dr. Rice agreed to pay the United States and the State of Texas $2 million, collectively, to settle the allegations. UMCP agreed to pay $1,280,000 to settle the matter. Both the Estate of Dr. Rice and UMCP fully cooperated with the investigation and, by settling, did not admit any wrongdoing or liability.
Claims for consumer fraud against indirect sellers
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).