Nembhard v. Hillside Auto Mall, Inc.

A-870-99T2 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2001) (Unpublished)

Opinion Date: February 28, 2001
Business Law
E-Mail

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.

A buyer purchased a new car which turned out to have been damaged prior to its sale. The buyer’s suit under the Consumer Fraud Act was held as a bench trial, even though the buyer requested a jury trial. On appeal, the buyer argued that he should have been given a jury trial and also argued that the lower court failed to give him compensation for a number of items of alleged damage. The Appellate Division held that a statement in a 1991 New Jersey Supreme Court case to the effect that “no court has yet determined whether there exists a right to trial by jury for damage claims asserted under the Consumer Fraud Act” remained the existing undecided state of the law. Nonetheless, the Court was comfortable with the correctness of the lower court’s legal rulings with respect to damages, and it was also comfortable that the buyer received the largest damage award a reasonable jury could determine. Consequently, it would not consider the buyer’s call for a jury trial, finding the issue moot. The buyer also sought compensation for eleven weeks of alleged lost wages when the vehicle was not available to him. The Court rejected that claim because, in its view, these were unforeseen consequential damages for which the dealer was not chargeable. It also rejected the buyer’s claim for storage, rental, continued insurance, and car loan payments because it agreed with the lower court that the buyer violated his duty to mitigate damages. Apparently, the dispute involved some scratches, a defective tail gate, and a defective paint job. These objections did not affect the safe operation of the car or in any way prevent the buyer from using the car pending resolution of the dispute. Further, those damages were held to have been caused by the buyer’s litigation strategy, and not by the dealer’s unlawful practices.

Case Law Summaries