Category: Business Law

DAF Builders, Inc. v. NDJ Realty

CONTRACTS—Equity will not permit one party to frustrate the other party’s ability to reap the rewards of its contract by refusing to perform an act required by the contract.

• Opinion Date: April 4, 2001

Dobridge v. Coastal Automotive Group

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; WARRANTIES—An ordinary breach of warranty does not constitute an unconscionable deceptive practice, but it can become one when coupled with substantial aggravating factors.

• Opinion Date: December 19, 2001

Cannon v. Cherry Hill Toyota, Inc.

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; TRUTH IN LENDING—Under the federal Truth in Lending Act, a consumer must prove reliance on the alleged violative act, but under the Consumer Fraud Act, the consumer need only show an ascertainable loss resulting from the alleged violative act.

• Opinion Date: August 29, 2001

Robles v. G-Rocky’s Autobody

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; AUTOMOBILES—It doesn’t matter that a car buyer knows that its car had been in a wreck because a dealer’s failure to comply with the New Jersey Retail Installment Act and the Consumer Fraud Act exposes the dealer to treble damages.

• Opinion Date: December 26, 2001

Scibek v. Longette

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; AUTOMOBILES—Intent is not an element of an unlawful practice and a consumer’s waiver of the Consumer Fraud Act’s requirements for a written estimate from an automobile repair shop must be in writing, even if the consumer is well aware of the requirement for a written estimate.

• Opinion Date: April 5, 2001

Lawson v. Dick Greenfield Dodge

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; AUTOMOBILES—Once a consumer proves a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, the statute mandates an award of counsel fees and costs even if no harm was caused to the consumer.

• Opinion Date: March 22, 2001

Leon v. Rite Aid Corporation

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; ADVERTISING—Advertising a “lowest and best price” policy may go beyond mere puffery and it may be a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act to advertise such a policy while charging different prices to different customers.

• Opinion Date: May 30, 2001

Mancini v. Vanderlinden

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT—Artistic restoration of an architectural element of a house is not home improvement; therefore, the Consumer Fraud Act as applied to home improvement contracts is inapplicable.

• Opinion Date: December 12, 2001

Keller v. Franchi

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT—A breach of contract is not per se unfair or unconscionable and does not alone violate the Consumer Fraud Act.

• Opinion Date: April 6, 2001

Nembhard v. Hillside Auto Mall, Inc.

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT—It is still undecided as to whether a consumer has the right to a jury trial for suits under the Consumer Fraud Act.

• Opinion Date: February 28, 2001