New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog
FACTS – SUMMATION
The plaintiff has proved that the defendant has committed fraud/consumer fraud. The dealer advised the plaintiff that the car was without accident both verbally and in writing. The plaintiff proved (CARFAX) and it was admitted (Defense expert testimony) that the car was in a previous accident. Defense only disputed severity of the accident. Defense expert and the General Manager admitted that the dealer probably knew of the prior damage. He actually testified that the dealer did know that the car was in an accident. The car was inspected by used car manager, technicians, certification process (Lexus trained techs looking for accident damage) and elcometer use on car acquisitions. (THE USED CAR MANAGER NEVER TURNED UP TO TESTIFY) Even more significant is that this was a dealer not a Chevy dealer!! Who would be in a better position to know that the car was not in MFGR-HIGHLINE- FRONT LINE CONDITION? Nobody. The dealer’s claim or assertion of ignorance as to any prior damage is both insulting and incredulous. The Manufacturer representative testified that bondo should not be used on certified cars (not Lexus quality repair) and any through panel penetration would render a car non-certifiable. (This was his initial testimony and then there was a break and Ms. Lawyer asked him the same question and his answer mysteriously changed)
It is agreed that there is penetration resulting from a dent repair. The best the dealer can do with these facts is that they did not see it because the holes had plugs. As a threshold matter the “dealer knowledge” is irrelevant. The MFGR rep did not say dealer knowledge was important JUST that this car could not be certified with the “holes in the car” Three in total. The through body penetration was the key factor. The bottom line here is that the dealer refused to step up to the plate and do the right thing. They sold a car that was in an accident. When the plaintiff returned and then when counsel wrote a letter they failed to repurchase the vehicle. This was after the plaintiff had returned, complained about an accident and they inspected the car. What exactly were they looking at? Did they use the elcometer then? Did they offer to do the repairs that defense expert admitted the car needed. NO NOTHING. This was after they knew that the car was in an accident. I guess the “thread” of an assertion the dealer might raise is the how do we know we really have bondo? Does this matter? The dealer sold a car and they did not know if it was bondo and chose to take the risk and sell it anyway. Maybe bondo maybe primer? They are the experts shouldn’t they know? They are experts in high end cars not selling grapefruit! High end manufactures and their dealers are superior. Right? They cannot have it both ways. Superior quality of a high line dealer, certified used cars and trained staff and then come and assert that we did not know? NOT REALLY. Where would the dealer place the blame? Please look at experts report and look how much was wrong with the car? Did they know? Of course.