Case Law Summaries

Robles v. G-Rocky’s Autobody

• Opinion Date: December 26, 2001
• Business Law
• E-Mail

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.

A woman bought a used car from a used car dealer/auto body repair shop. She knew that the car had been in a serious accident. Both buyer and seller agreed that the seller had promised to repair the car, but they disagreed as to whether such repairs were done. The car was nothing but trouble. When the buyer sued the dealer and others, no defendant entered an answer and a default judgment was issued against all the defendants. An attorney appeared for some of the defendants at the proof hearing, and the lower court allowed testimony regarding liability in addition to testimony regarding damages. At the end of the hearing, the lower court “honed in on the fact that [the buyer] knew the car had been in an accident so [the lower court] concluded there was no consumer fraud and never dealt with any of the other issues raised.” The Appellate Division disagreed. It had no concern about the sufficiency of the evidence to establish liability. The seller furnished the buyer with a dealer-issued temporary licence plate, but did not provide the buyer with any written documentation concerning the sale of the vehicle, the loan arrangements, title documents or any other documents except a body shop repair form. It stated the amount of the deposit, the year, make and model of the car, its vehicle identification number, and the selling price. “The New Jersey Retail Installment Sales Act of 1960 requires that all [automobile sale] contracts be in writing and contain all the agreements between the retail buyer and retail seller,” such as “the unpaid cash balance owing the retail seller, amount of official fees, amount of the time differential, the time balance for the number of installments and their amount, and the time sales price.” Under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, a dealer must provide a written warranty on the sale a used vehicle and must correct malfunctions or defects to a used vehicle under warranty. Further, that law “requires an automobile dealer to repurchase a used vehicle from the buyer and refund the full purchase price where the dealer fails to correct a material defect in a vehicle after a reasonable opportunity to do so.” Here, the dealer admitted that the “scribbled invoice and a temporary dealer tags were the only documents involved in the transaction.” In fact, the dealer testified that it remained the owner, rather than a lien holder, of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Court held that the buyer was entitled to treble damages and counsel fees for violations of the Consumer Fraud Act and exercised its original jurisdiction to enter judgment in favor of the buyer for the three times the amount of the monies paid by the buyer for the car. It then remanded the matter to the lower court to determine counsel fees.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.