Questions about your consumer rights and Consumer Fraud in New Jersey

Consumers in New Jersey have many consumer rights pertaining to the purchase of new and used automobiles. Consumer rights vary from claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Uniform Commercial Code. Consumers also have rights under other consumer related statutes. There many consumer statutes which provide consumers with numerous claims against a deceptive business.

Generally speaking, there must be an out-of-pocket loss or a somewhat specific amount of damage. Some consumer rights statutes provide statutory damages such as wrongful repossession cases or Truth in Contract and Warranty Notice Act. Here, you do not need to sustain an ascertainable loss or an actual economic damage. In New Jersey under the Truth in Contract and Warranty Notice Act you might be entitled to statutory damages.

Dealership fraud involves selling vehicles with prior damage and evolves the enforcement of consumer rights under the New Jersey consumer statutes. One of the statute is the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

In New Jersey a selling dealer ordinarily has an obligation to make sure a used car passes inspection. There is not such an obligation for new cars.

When a dealer inspects a used vehicle in New Jersey to make sure it is safe for customer they are required to make relevant, material disclosures to purchasers. As an example, if the dealer learns that there is a significant defect, and they think that it will make a difference in the purchasing decision. There are required to make the disclosure. Finally, it would be a jury question as to whether or not the dealer knew or should of known that it would need a difference in the purchasing decision. This is a question of fraud or fraud.

If the dealer affirmatively made a misrepresentation of fact no intent would be required to have a successful case under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In New Jersey an affirmative misrepresentation of fact does not require intent. In New Jersey an omission requires intent. If you allege that the dealer was silent as to something important you be required to demonstrate that they failed to advise you and had the intent to commit fraud.

There is a significant difference between an omission an affirmative misrepresentation. When you are alleging in omission of fact you must plead and prove intent. When you are alleging an affirmative misrepresentation of fact you do not need to allege fraudulent intent, or intent to deceive.

The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act provides many options for consumers and provides many options for consumers. The Consumer Fraud Act provides injunctive relief for those aggrieved and who have sustained a loss or an ascertainable loss as a result of the deceptive conduct by the dealer or the business.

Equitable relief such as injunctive relief is very powerful and can stop a deceptive practice and acts (UDAP) to assist consumers in stopping deceptive business.

The courts can assist consumer that have been the victim of fraud and have sustained a loss and want to sue.

Jonathan Rudnick can you you in this endeavor as he has significant experience in this industry.

If you’re making a claim for common law fraud you do need to allege intent and prove intent to defraud. This is not required under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.