Consumer fraud trials can be complicated, LONG and a challenge. There are Rules of Court that must be followed, rules of evidence and Model Jury Instructions. A trial has very little to do with everyday common sense. There are strict rules to address what arguments can be made, what facts can be presented to the judge and jury and burdens of proof and persuasion. It takes years of in court experience to understand a trial, especially a Consumer For a Trial.

A Consumer Fraud Trial has a large amount of very technical requirements/proof/burdens. As in most cases, the plaintiff has the burden. However in some areas of a Consumer Trial the burden is lowered because of the practical considerations the legislature has determined are necessary for the enforcement of the consumer fraud act.

A good example is Proximate Cause. In most lawsuits, and in most causes of action there is a requirement for proximate cause. Proximate cause requires that the actions of the defendant caused the damage to the plaintiff or the victim. There are specific jury instructions that address this issue. However, in Consumer Fraud Trials the standard/burden has been lowered by the New Jersey courts.

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 attorneys fees and costs.

Opening Statement

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.

I just updated my website to provide some additional analysis of the Odometer Roll Back and the concept of affirmative, false representations of fact.

https://www.consumer-attorney.com/cuesta-v-classic-car-358-n-j-super-512-app-div-2003.html

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

How are salesman paid in the car industry.  I just posted a long article about a salesman not been paid properly. This is a simple letter, simple questions that car salesman are curious about one consulting about suing a car dealership

www.consumer-attorney.com

https://www.consumer-attorney.com/how-are-car-salesman-paid-how-much-money-do-car-salesman-make.html

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 dealerships 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 defendants 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.

Researching Recalls on New and Used Vehicles

The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick Recall Research click here

One of the most basic and simplest research tools on the Internet is the government site where you can check recalls for the vehicle you were buying. You take the vehicle identification number of the vehicle you are attempting to purchase and place that vehicle identification number into the appropriate spot on the website and it will tell you if there are any outstanding recalls.

STATEMENT 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 ›

NEW JERSEY LAWSUITS AND JUDGMENTS

THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUNICK LLC